The Parks at Garland Healthcare and Rehab
3737 N Garland Ave., Garland, TX 75044 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 132 certified beds · (972) 495-7000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602) — most recent Dec 2025
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $10,345 in federal fines (most recent 2023-12-07)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 9.8% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 3.0% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.3% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.9% | 2.4% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.3% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.6% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.8% | 18.0% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.3% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.6% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 3.4% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 3.4% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.6% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 33.0% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.0% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.17 | 2.17 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.72 | 2.06 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.79 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 94% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 14.2%CMS range 9.3–19.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 88.6% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 5.7% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.17 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 132 beds and averages 93.9 residents a day — about 71% occupied, or roughly 38 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.13 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.71 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.92 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.82 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.26 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.78 to 0.54 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2023-12-07 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from abuse for 1 (Resident #16) of 3 residents reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to protect Resident #16 from physical abuse. Resident #16 was pushed off of his bed, onto the floor by CNA J during incontinence care on 11/29/23. The non compliance was identified as PNC. The Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) began on 11/29/23 and ended on 11/29/23. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. These failures could place residents at risk for abuse and could lead to serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, pain, and/or mental anguish. Findings included: Review of the facility Abuse, Neglect, molestation, and Misappropriation Policy dated 11/1/2022 stated that: A. The use of verbal, sexual, physical and mental abuse .of the resident is strictly prohibited. Review of Resident #16's face sheet, dated 12/7/23, revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male, initially admitted to the facility on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-04-10 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a private meeting space for residents' monthly Resident Council Meeting for 7 of 14 confidential residents reviewed for Resident Council for 1 of 1 facility.1. The facility failed to provide a private space area for residents who attended monthly Resident Council Meetings.This failure could place residents who attend the monthly Resident Council Meetings at risk of not being able to voice their concerns amongst each other due to a lack of privacy.Findings included:In an interview with the Activities Director on 04/09/26 at 10:30 AM, she stated that the confidential group meeting on 04/09/26 with the residents of Resident Council and the State Surveyor would not be held in the Private Dining Room where the monthly Resident Council Meetings were normally held. The Activities Director stated that the confidential group meeting on 04/09/26 with the residents of Resident Council and the State Surveyor would be held in an empty resident room for privacy.A confidential group meeting was held on 04/09/26 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-04-10 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the right to file grievances anonymously for 12 of 12 residents (Resident #75 and confidential group members) reviewed for grievances.1. The facility failed to ensure that the 93 residents at the facility had access to file a grievance anonymously.The facility's failure could place the residents at risk for concerns not being reported and addressed.Findings included:Record review of Resident #75's Face Sheet, dated 04/10/26, reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female who initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident # 75's active diagnoses included: Stage 3A chronic kidney disease (mild to moderate loss of kidney function), Alzheimer's disease (a progressive, neurodegenerative disorder and the most common cause of dementia, characterized by memory loss, cognitive decline, and behavioral changes), dementia (cognitive decline-including memory loss, language issues, and poor…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-10 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a discharge summary for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for closed records. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 discharged the facility with a discharge summary that included an accurate and current description of the clinical status of the resident and sufficiently detailed, individualized care instructions to ensure that care is coordinated and the resident transitions safely from one setting to another. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving appropriate and timely care due to confusion among various facilities, agencies, practitioners, and caregivers involved with the resident's care. Findings Included: Record review of Resident #2's discharge MDS, dated [DATE], revealed the [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (a fatal neurological disorder) and discharged the facility on 03/21/2026. A record review of Resident #2's progress notes, dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for infection control. CNA A failed to wear the appropriate PPE while providing incontinent care to Resident #1.CNA B failed to wear the appropriate PPE while transferring Resident #1 from bed to wheelchair. LVN C failed to wear the appropriate PPE while transferring Resident #1 from bed to wheelchair. This failure could place residents at risk of being infected by staff in contact with other residents with infections. Review of Resident 1's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed that she was a [AGE] year-old female. Resident #1 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Admitting diagnoses included muscle wasting and atrophy, muscle weakness (generalized), morbid…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-12-09 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident received food that is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 1 of 1 lunch meals tested for nutritive value, flavor, and appearance: The facility failed to provide palatable food served at an appetizing temperature to residents, during lunch on 12/09/2025. This failure could affect the residents who ate food from the facility kitchen by placing them at risk of poor food intake and/or dissatisfaction of the meals served.The findings included: During an interview on 12/09/2025 at 9:58 a.m., CNA A stated she had received complaints from residents that the food was cold, but not often and only for residents who ate in their room. The CNA stated that trays were passed when the cart was on the hall. The CNA stated that it could take 10 minutes to pass all trays. During an interview on 12/09/2025 at 10:10 a.m., CNA G stated she had received complaints from residents stating that the food was cold. The CNA G stated that they asked the residents if they would like…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-09 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the right to be free from misappropriation of property for 1 of2 residents reviewed for misappropriation (Resident #2). Based on interview and record review, the facility was unable to account for 11 Soma pills missing from Resident #2's blister pack of physician prescribed Soma (muscle relaxant). This failure could place residents at risk of misappropriation of physician ordered medications. Findings included: Record review of the Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] reflected indicated Resident #2 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include: Congestive Heart Failure (heart pumps slow), Schizoaffective (mental disorder), panic disorder (mental disorder), dementia (confusion), diabetes, (increased sugar), other chronic pain (pain). Resident #2 was severely cognitively impaired and unable to make decisions. Resident #2 requires two staff for activities of daily living. Record review of a Physician's Order dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-09 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, and record review, the facility failed to incorporate recommendations from a PASRR evaluation report into a resident assessment, care planning, and transition of care for 1 (Resident #1) of 2 residents reviewed for PASRR services. The facility failed to submit a complete and accurate request for NFSS in the LTC online portal within 20 days after the IDT meeting. This failure could place residents who were PASRR positive at risk of not getting the PASARR services for a better quality of life and could lead to a decline in health. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had the following diagnoses: muscle weakness (decreased strength), drug induced movement disorder (involuntary movements), unspecified lack of coordination (unable to control movement), diabetes (increased sugar), genetic related intellectual disabilities (abnormalities in genes or chromosomes), seizure (nerve disorder),…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-01-30 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the facility's only kitchen, reviewed for food storage, labeling, dating, and kitchen sanitation. The facility failed to ensure staff were wearing the appropriate hair and beard coverings. This failure could place residents at risk for food contamination and foodborne illness. Findings included: Observation on 01/29/25 at 11:36 AM of the kitchen revealed Dietary Manager (DM) had facial hair on his chin, and he was not wearing a beard covering. The DM was observed checking temperatures of the food they prepared for the lunch meal service. In an interview on 01/30/25 at 03:35 PM, the DM stated that he had been the DM for over a year. He was made aware that during food temperatures he did not have a beard covering and that the Environmental. Director was observed taking food off the tray stand and delivered food to residents and he was not wearing a beard covering. The DM revealed he…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-26 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive plan was reviewed and revised by an interdisciplinary team composed of individuals who have knowledge of the resident and his/her needs, that includes but is not limited the attending physician, a registered nurse with responsibility for the resident, a nurse aide with responsibility for the resident, and a member of food and nutrition services staff, for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for comprehensive resident centered care plans. The facility failed to ensure all members of the interdisciplinary team were present for the care plan. The failure placed the residents at risk for unmet care needs and a decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's electronic face sheet, printed 3/26/2024, revealed a [AGE] year-old male was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re admitted on [DATE] and 03/20/24 with diagnoses that included but not limited to pressure ulcer (areas of skin damage caused…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-12-07 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the facility's only kitchen. 1. The facility failed to date food stored in the freezer that should no longer be consumed. 2. The facility failed to discard food stored in the refrigerator that was past use by date and should no longer be consumed. These failures could affect Residents who received their meals from the facility's only kitchen, by placing them at risk for food-borne illness if consumed, and food contamination. Findings included: Observation in facility's kitchen on 12/05/23 at 09:25 AM revealed Whipped topping in freezer was not dated. Observation in facility's kitchen on 12/05/23 at 09:28 AM revealed whole frozen turkey found in the kitchen walk-in freezer in original packaging was not dated. Observation in facility's kitchen on 12/05/23 at 09:31 AM revealed spoiled Lettuce stored in walk-in refrigerator with use-by date of 11/26/2023. In an interview with FSD on 12/05/2023 at 9:47…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-07 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each Resident, consistent with Resident rights, that include measurable objectives and time frames to meet Residents' mental and psychosocial needs for 2 of 4 (Residents #6 and Resident#235) Residents reviewed for care plans. 1) The facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to address Resident # 6 noncompliance with Physician orders of using O2 via Nasal cannula. 2) The facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to address Resident #235 Significant weight loss of 8.64% in 1 month.) This failure could place resident at risk of not having a plan developed to address care needs. Findings include: Resident #6 Record Review of Resident # 6 MDS dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #6 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to facility on 06/3/2023 with BIMS Score of 13 which means that resident was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-09-19 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to conduct activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 3 (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3) of 5 residents reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's facial hair was removed and nails were trimmed and cleaned. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's facial hair was removed. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3's nails were trimmed and cleaned. These failures could place residents at risk of infections and skin tears resulting in pain, discomfort and decreased psycho-social well-being and self-worth. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1s Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE]. He had a BIMs of 15 (cognitively intact) and required extensive assistance with ADLs. He had diagnoses of blindness, stroke, hemiplegia (one…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-12 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident received adequate supervision/assistance to prevent accidents for one (Resident #1) of four residents reviewed for accidents in that: Agency CNA A failed to utilize the appropriate safety precautions and amount of assistance Resident #1 required while providing incontinence care for the resident, as a result, Resident #1 rolled out of the bed and sustained a black eye. This failure could place residents at risk for accidents and injury. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's facility electronic face sheet, undated, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old male who admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia and muscle weakness. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS ) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 required total assistance of two staff members for activities of daily living (ADL), including incontinence care and bed mobility. Further review of the MDS revealed a Brief interview of mental status (BIMS)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-12 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — isolatedMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility was free of pests for 1(bathroom room [ROOM NUMBER]) of 6 bathrooms reviewed for pest control The facility failed to ensure Resident bathrooms did not contain live roaches. This failure could place residents at risk of a diminished quality of life due to an unsafe environment. The findings were: Observation on 09/12/2023 10:45 a.m. revealed a live roach on Resident #2 and Resident #3's bathroom ceiling. The bathroom had a dead roach on the floor of the shower. Interview on 09/12/2023 at 10:35 AM with Resident #2 revealed she had lived in the facility off an on for 4 years. She stated she had complained of roaches being in the room and maintenance did spray bug spray however the issue had not been resolved. Resident #2 stated she did file a grievance regarding the roaches however did not remember the exact date. Resident #2 was not sure how long there has been issues with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$10,345 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $10,345 — penalty dated 2023-12-07
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PRIORITY MANAGEMENT — 38 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 1.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 37 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BAUDER FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 33% | since 04/01/2024 |
| BOULWARE ST JAMES LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 33% | since 04/01/2024 |
| STEVEN BOULWARE FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 33% | since 04/01/2024 |
| BAUDER, KELLY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 8% | since 04/01/2024 |
| BAUDER, MADISON | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 8% | since 04/01/2024 |
| BAUDER, PARKER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 8% | since 04/01/2024 |
| BOULWARE, THOMAS | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 8% | since 04/01/2024 |
| WALKER, KATIE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 8% | since 04/01/2024 |
| BOULWARE, DOUGLAS | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| BOULWARE, SANDRA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| BAUDER, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| BOULWARE, STEVEN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| MILLER, BOBBIE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| BRIDGEPOINTE FINANICAL SERVICES, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| INNOVATIVE NURSE CONSULTING, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| PRIORITY MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| PROGRESSIVE REHAB SOLUTIONS, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| MIRZA, MUHAMMAD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| ZAID, MUSAAB | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| PMG REALCO-GARLAND, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 34 rows in the source record cover these 20 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
8 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 78% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $289K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 676039. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-10, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.