Cherokee Rose Nursing And Rehabilitation
203 Gibbs Blvd, Glen Rose, TX 76043 · For profit - Corporation · 102 certified beds · (254) 897-7361 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (18) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
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) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 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 held steady at 3 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 | 10.6% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.1% | 3.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.1% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 8.0% | 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 | 0.5% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.5% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.6% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.6% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 4.7% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.6% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.6% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.6% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 44.6% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 32.0% | 12.3% | 12.0% | worse |
‡ 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 0.51 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 82% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. 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 | 10.5%CMS range 6.3–15.7 | 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 | 96.9% | 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 | 6.2% | 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 | 0.81 | 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 102 beds and averages 50.8 residents a day — about 50% occupied, or roughly 51 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 3.20 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.29 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.96 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 2.56 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.46 on weekdays — 26% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.32 to 0.20 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.
18 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 8 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · E2026-03-26 · 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, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide a private meeting space to conduct group meetings without continued interruptions by facility staff for 13 of 48 confidential residents who were reviewed for resident council. The facility failed to provide a private area for confidential resident group meetings.This failure placed all residents who participated in a resident council of not having the right to voice their concerns without staff being present or overhearing their concerns. Findings included: During an observation and interview of a confidential group meeting on 03/25/2026 between 1:30 p.m. and 1:50 p.m., one facility staff member was observed to open the door to the dining room and walk through the dining room to get to the kitchen with a cup in her hand. The staff member then walked back through the dining room with the cup and exited through the dining room door. The resident council members stated the facility staff came in and out of the dining room with no privacy during resident council meetings. The resident council members…
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 · E2026-03-26 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 1 (Resident #13) of 12 residents reviewed for medications.The facility failed to hold Lisinopril (medication to lower blood pressure) per parameters stated in physicians' orders for a total of 6 doses in March 2026 for Resident #13.The facility failed to hold Diltiazem (medication to lower blood pressure) per parameters stated in physicians' orders for a total of 22 doses in March 2026 for Resident #13.The failures placed the residents at risk of harm or not receiving desired outcomes from medications not administered according to physician's orders and manufacturer's specifications.Resident #13Record review of Resident #13's electronic Face Sheet, accessed 03/24/2026, reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The…
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 before2026-03-26 · 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 reviews, the facility failed to properly prepare and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed. The facility failed to ensure foods were heated to a temperature of 165 degrees F after mechanically altering the pureed food and held at least 15 seconds when food temperature was below 140 degrees F during the lunch meal observed on 03/24/2026. The facility failed to ensure foods were heated to a temperature of 165 degrees F after mechanically altering the mechanical soft BBQ chicken during the lunch meal observed on 03/24/2026.These failures could place residents that eat out of the kitchen at risk for food borne illnesses.Findings included:During an observation on 03/24/2026 at 11:48 a.m., [NAME] B pureed BBQ chicken that she removed from steam table pan with some warm liquid. After she got the food to pureed texture, [NAME] B placed the pureed BBQ chicken in a divided plate. The plate remained by the blender. No temperature of the pureed BBQ chicken was taken.During an…
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 · D2026-03-26 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents, who needed respiratory care, were provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for on 2 (Resident #13 and Resident #20) of 12 residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #13's nebulizer (used to receive medications by breathing in mist through the mouth) for breathing treatment was properly stored when not in use on 03/24/2026. The facility failed to ensure Resident #20's nebulizer for breathing treatment was properly stored when not in use on 03/24/2026. These failures could place residents at risk for respiratory infection and not having their respiratory needs met.Findings included: Resident #13 Record review of Resident #13's electronic Face Sheet, accessed 03/24/2026, reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The 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 · Dcited before2026-03-26 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
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, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed for 1 of 1 (Resident #19) resident who received a pureed meal reviewed. The facility failed to ensure residents receiving a pureed texture diet were provided with Honey Kissed Roll according to the menu, including a roll during the lunch meal observed on 03/24/2026. This failure could place residents that eat food from the kitchen at risk of poor intake, chemical imbalance and/or weight loss. Findings included: Record review of Resident #19's electronic face sheet, dated 03/26/2026, reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) and cognitive communication deficit (communication impaired by brain function). Record review of Resident #19's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected a BIMS score of 01 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review of the MDS reflected Resident #19 had been on a mechanically altered diet while a…
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 · D2025-08-06 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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 assess residents for risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation and/or review the risks and benefits of bed rails with the resident or resident representative and obtain informed consent prior to installation of 1 of 4 (Resident # 3) reviewed for the use of bed rails. The facility failed to ensure that a bed rail assessment and bed rail consent was completed for Resident # 3 or Resident # 3's family representative. This failure could have placed residents at increased risks for entrapment in bed rails and for lack of informed consent regarding the risks associated with use of bed rails. The findings included:Record review of Resident #3's face sheet dated 8/6/2025 revealed Resident #3 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with a readmission on [DATE] with the following diagnoses fracture of right femur, high blood pressure, heart disease and weakness.Record review of Resident #3's admission MDS dated [DATE]…
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 · E2024-12-13 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — patternReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
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 accommodate residents' needs and preferences for 3 of 19 (Resident #8, Resident # 21, and Resident #37) residents reviewed for accommodation of needs. The facility failed to ensure Resident #8, Resident #21, and Resident #37 call lights were within reach. This failure could place residents at risk of a diminished quality of life and lead to a loss of self-esteem and isolation. Findings included: Resident #8 Review of Resident #8's electronic face sheet dated 12/13/2024 revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] and most recently admitted on [DATE] with following diagnosis: dementia, senile degeneration of brain (mental deterioration that is associated with old age), difficulty walking, unsteadiness on feet, lack of coordination, history of falling, and muscle weakness. Review of Resident #8's significant change MDS dated [DATE] revealed: BIMS score of 01 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Section GG: Functional Abilities…
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 · E2024-12-13 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
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 drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, for 1 of 6 (C Hall) Medication Carts and 1 of 1 medication room. 1. The facility failed to ensure C Hall medication cart keys were not kept on unattended cart in binder labeled Narcotic Book C Hall. 2. The facility failed to ensure that all medications stored in C Hall medication cart were properly stored/labeled. These failures placed all residents at risk of harm or decline in health due to lack of potency of medications/biologicals or misappropriation of medications. The findings included: During an observation and interview on 12/10/2024 beginning at 10:33 a.m., the C Hall medication cart revealed MA D was administering medications. The top left drawer of C Hall medication cart stored 15 loose pills under one lock in a 3 clear medication cups with no label. MA D stated she had attempted to administer the medications earlier and those residents would not take them. She…
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 before2024-12-13 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the menus met the nutritional needs of residents in accordance with established guidelines and were followed for 1 of 1 meal (lunch meal on 12/10/2024) reviewed for menus being followed. The facility did not prepare or serve the posted items included on the menu as recommended by the licensed dietician. This failure could affect all residents who ate the food prepared for the lunch meal on 12/10/2024, by placing them at risk of not receiving adequate nutritive value and calorie intake needed to promote and maintain good health. Findings include: During an observation on 12/10/2024 at 8:10 a.m., the menu on the bulletin board posted in the dining room outside the kitchen door was set up in cycles which set the meals in five-week rotation of meals. The menu for the lunch meal dated 12/10/2024 was: Grilled steak with onions, baked potatoes, sautéed broccoli, honey kissed rolled, margarine, sour cream, cheese, cheesecake with fruit topping and tea. During an interview on 12/10/2024 at 10:25 a.m., [NAME] I…
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 before2024-12-13 · 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, interview, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for service safety, in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure staff practiced appropriate hand hygiene during meal prep. 2. The facility failed to label open food items with date opened food in the refrigerator and freezer. 3. The facility failed to ensure staff appropriately cleaned and sanitized the thermometer prior to testing food temperatures. These failures could place residents at risk of food borne illness and cross contamination. Findings include: During an observation on 12/10/2024 at 8:31 a.m., revealed four (4) sealed bags and one (1) open bag of cabbage were with no label identifyng items and dates opened. A medium size container of brown pudding and a medium size of orange pudding had lids that sat on top of the containers but were not sealed. During an observation on 12/10/2024 at 8:44 a.m., revealed five (5) bags of small pita bread were located in the up-right…
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.
Show the remaining 8 citations
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-12-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 reviewed for 2 of 4 halls (B Hall & C Hall) reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure staff (CNA B) wore appropriate PPE providing direct care services for Resident #46 (on B Hall) who was placed on Transmission Based Precautions due to having contracted COVID-19. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #46 wore appropriate PPE when being transported to shower room on B Hall. 3. The facility failed to ensure LVN C performed hand hygiene when obtaining blood sample for glucose reading (on C Hall). These deficient practices could affect residents that reside in the facility and place them at risk of infection. Findings included: Resident #46 Record review of Resident #46's electronic face sheet…
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 · D2024-12-13 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
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 a residents significant change in physical or mental condition was determined for 1 of 19 residents (Residents #47) reviewed for significant change. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 47 had a Significant Change Assessment completed after his admission to hospice. This failure could contribute to providing an inaccurate assessment of resident's most current medical condition and could lead to failure to not provide necessary care. Findings include: Record review of Resident #47's electronic face sheet revealed an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility 9/13/2024 with a most recent admission on [DATE] with the following diagnosis: Traumatic subdural hemorrhage with loss of consciousness (head injury from trauma with brain bleed), sepsis (infection that has spread to the blood), respiratory failure, and Type 2 diabetes. Record review of Resident #47's admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed: Section C-Cognitive Patterns revealed…
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 · D2024-12-13 · 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 interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan based on assessed needs with the ability to be evaluated or quantified to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 (Resident #47) of 19 residents reviewed for comprehensive person-centered care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #47's comprehensive care plan addressed Resident #47 being on hospice. This failure could affect the residents by placing them at risk for not receiving care and services to attain or maintain the residents highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings included: Record review of Resident #47's electronic face sheet revealed an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility 9/13/2024 with a most recent admission on [DATE] with the following diagnosis: Traumatic subdural hemorrhage with loss of consciousness (head injury from trauma with brain bleed), sepsis (infection that…
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 · D2024-12-13 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
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 maintain medical records on each resident, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, that were complete and accurate for 1 (Resident #47) of 19 residents reviewed for resident records. The facility failed to ensure Resident #47's clinical record included an order to admit to hospice. The order was only located in the hospice records. This failure could place residents at risk of having errors in care and treatment. The Findings included: Findings included: Record review of Resident #47's electronic face sheet revealed an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility 9/13/2024 with a most recent admission on [DATE] with the following diagnosis: Traumatic subdural hemorrhage with loss of consciousness (head injury from trauma with brain bleed), sepsis (infection that has spread to the blood), respiratory failure, and Type 2 diabetes. Record review of Resident #47's admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed: Section C-Cognitive…
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 · D2023-10-25 · 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #31) reviewed for accidents and supervision. The CNA and NA failed to lock the Hoyer lift (a patient lift used by caregivers to safely transfer patients) during a transfer of Resident #31. This failure could place residents at risk of injuries. Findings included: Record Review of Resident #31's electronic face sheet revealed the resident was an [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include: Abnormalities of the gait and mobility, Disorders of the bone in the upper arm, and Stiffness of the right and left arm. Review of Resident #31's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed: Section C: Cognitive Patterns: BIMS score (08) indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Section G: Transfer:…
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 · D2023-10-25 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
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 CNA's and NA's were able to demonstrate appropriate competencies and skills sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident for 2 of 2 (CNA, NA) staff reviewed for Hoyer Lift transfers. The facility failed to ensure the CNA and NA had competency in skills and techniques necessary to care for residents' needs. This failure could place residents requiring incontinent care at risk for the spread of infections, skin breakdown, and decreased quality of life. Findings include: Record Review of Resident #31's electronic face sheet revealed resident was an [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include: Abnormalities of the gait and mobility, Disorders of the bone in the upper arm, and Stiffness of the right and left arm. Review of Resident #31's Quarterly MDS assessment 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 · Dcited before2023-10-25 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 reviews the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed. The facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary storage of food and food dispensers that were accessible to residents. These failures could place residents that eat out of the kitchen at risk for food borne illnesses. Findings included: During an observation in the dining area on 10/23/2023 at 10:45 AM revealed Resident #35 was at the resident nutrition station. Resident #35 opened the unlocked sugar and cream dispenser. Resident #35 was observed placing his fingers up and in the valves that dispensed the products and licking his fingers. During an interview on 10/23/2023 at 12:23 PM the DM stated the CNAs were responsible for setting up the drink bar. The DM stated she was not aware of who was responsible for monitoring the drink station. During an interview on 10/23/2023 at 12:27 PM the Dietician stated the dispenser used to remain locked all the times because there 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 · Ecited before2023-09-22 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 reviewed for 4 of 6 staff (CNA A, HA B, HA C and RN D) reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure staff (CNA A, HA B, HA C and RN D) wore appropriate PPE to include N-95 mask, gown, gloves, and eye protection while providing direct care services to residents on Aerosol Contact Precautions (set of measures to protect against the transmission of respiratory infections that can spread through the air) These deficient practices could affect residents that reside in the facility and placed them at risk of infection. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident # 4's electronic face sheet dated 9/22/2023 revealed [AGE] year-old female with the following diagnoses high blood pressure, malnutrition, and…
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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CREATIVE SOLUTIONS IN HEALTHCARE — 149 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 | 3 of 5 | 2.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
The other 148 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 148; lowest-rated first.
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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| HUGGINS, LINDA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 11/01/2011 |
| CREATIVE SOLUTIONS IN HEALTHCARE INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/01/2011 |
| BLAKE, GARY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/01/2011 |
| BLAKE, MALISA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/01/2011 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner 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.
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 675008. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-26, 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.