Hillview Nursing And Rehabilitation
1110 Rice St, Goldthwaite, TX 76844 · Government - Hospital district · 52 certified beds · (325) 648-2247 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (30% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Jul 2024
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 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 5 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 | 0.0% | 15.8% | 15.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| 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 | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 2.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 1.8% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.5% | 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 | 1.0% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 5.2% | 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 | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.45 | 2.17 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.29 | 2.06 | 1.80 | worse |
* 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 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 43% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 19% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| 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 | 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 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 1.31 | 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 52 beds and averages 48.0 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.10 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.67 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.98 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 2.67 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.28 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.73 to 0.51 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 30% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-28 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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 ensure residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 2 (Resident #1 and #2) of 4 residents reviewed for quality of care. 1. The facility failed to ensure staff conducted neurological assessments on Resident #1 after his unwitnessed fall on 12/05/24. 2. The facility failed to ensure staff conducted neurological assessments on Resident #2 after her unwitnessed fall on 01/31/25. These deficient practices could place residents at risk of head injuries, brain bleed and developing undiagnosed conditions. Findings include: Resident #1 Review of Resident #1's admission Record, dated 02/28/25, reflected he was an [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE], readmitted on [DATE], and discharged on 01/28/25. Resident #1 had diagnoses including cellulitis of right lower limb, neurocognitive disorder with Lewy bodies, dementia, and delusional disorders. Review of Resident #1's Significant Change…
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 · Fcited before2024-09-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 profession standards for food safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food and safety and sanitation. 1. The facility failed to ensure dietary staff practiced proper hand hygiene and glove use. 2. The facility failed to seal, label, and date tortillas and failed to label and date two large bags of ice-covered chicken in one of one freezer located in the dry storage area. These failures could place residents at risks for health complications and foodborne illnesses. Findings included: 1. Observation on 09/24/2024 at 9:15 AM Dietary [NAME] was not wearing gloves. She touched her shirt and touched a cleaning towel. She did not wash or sanitize her hands prior to touching the fourchettes of the gloves when she was placing the gloves on her hands. She touched clean plates and inside of a scoop. In an interview on 09/24/2024 at 9:19 AM the Dietary [NAME] stated she did touch her shirt and touched the cleanser towel to clean different surfaces. 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 · E2024-09-26 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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 provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for the 27 residents, in the memory care unit, reviewed for a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment The facility failed to report maintenance issues to the MNTD and make repairs to a loose hand railing, in the memory care unit community bathroom . This failure could have placed the residents in the memory care unit to falls. Findings included: Observation on 9/24/2024 at 11:38 AM revealed a handrail, inside the community bathroom on the facility's memory care unit, was loose. The handrail was still attached firmly to the wall in the bathroom but had 1 to 2 inches of vertical movement. There were no sharp edges. Interview on 09/24/24 at 11:41 AM with CNA A revealed the handrail was loose. She stated she was trained to report maintenance issues to the MNTD by writing the area of concern in the facility's maintenance book and telling the MNTD. She stated the book was in the main room, at the front of the facility, near the nurse's…
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 · E2024-09-26 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents unable to conduct activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for four of eight residents (Resident # 23, Resident # 29, and Resident #104) reviewed quality of life. The facility failed to ensure Resident #23's, Resident #29's, and Resident #104's nails were cleaned. These failures could place residents at risk for poor hygiene, dignity issues, and decreased quality of life. 1. Record review of Resident # 23's Face Sheet dated, 09/25/2024, reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of other frontotemporal neurocognitive disorder (a rare brain disease that causes gradual damage to the frontal and temporal lobes of the brain), dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere, moderate, with other behavioral disturbance ( a medical condition that refers to a moderate stage of dementia- decline 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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-09-26 · tag F0808 — failed to follow doctor-ordered diets — patternEnsure therapeutic diets are prescribed by the attending physician and may be delegated to a registered or licensed dietitian, to the extent allowed by State law.
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 a therapeutic diet was prescribed by the attending physician for 3 of 13 residents (Resident #18, Resident #26, and Resident 30) reviewed for dietary services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #18, Resident #26, and Resident #30 received their prescribed diet for 09/24/2024 lunch. This deficient practice could place residents, who were provided a mechanically altered diet, at risk of choking, aspiration (inhaling food,) and diminished quality of life. Resident #18 Record review or Resident #18's AR, dated 09/24/2024, reflected an [AGE] year-old man, born on 7/11/1942, who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease (which was a progressive disease having caused mild memory loss, inability to execute conversations, and the inability to respond to the environment) and diabetes mellitus type 2 (which was a condition of the body that disrupted how the body used sugar for fuel.) Record review…
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 before2024-09-26 · 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 observations, interviews, 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 transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 5 of 5 resident (Resident #20, #22, #32, #33, and #42) reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure MA performed proper hand hygiene when passing medications on Residents #20, #32, and # 33. The facility failed to ensure CNA-A and CNA-B sanitized equipment between residents. This failure could place residents at risk for development of communicable diseases and infections. Findings included: Record review of Resident 22's undated face sheet, revealed she was an [AGE] year-old female admitted [DATE] with diagnoses of Parkinsonism, Anxiety, Depression, HTN, and Hyperlipidemia. Record review of Resident 22's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 05, which indicated the resident's…
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 · D2024-09-26 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
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 advance notice of change in services and charges not covered under Medicare for 2 of 3 residents (Residents #27 and Resident #28) reviewed for Medicaid and Medicare Coverage Liability Notices. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #27 was provided a Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage Form CMS-10055 (SNF ABN) when he was discharged from Medicare Part A skilled nursing services. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #28 was provided a Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage Form CMS-10055 (SNF ABN) when he was discharged from Medicare Part A skilled nursing services. This failure could place the residents, or their representatives, at risk of not being fully informed about services covered by Medicare Part A, and unknowingly being charged for Skilled Nursing Services. Findings included: Resident #27 Record review or Resident #27's AR, dated 6/26/2024, reflected a [AGE] year-old…
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 · D2024-09-26 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolatedMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
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 review, the facility failed to adequately equipp residents the ability to call for staff assistance through a communication system, which relays the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area, from the bathroom for 2 of 8 Residents (Resident #4 and Resident #50) who were reviewed for resident call systems. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4 and Resident #50's shared bathroom had a pull string attached to the call light switch making the call light button accessible if the resident were lying on the floor. This failure could place residents at risk of harm by not being able to call for help when needed. Findings included: Resident #4 Record review of Resident #4's AR, dated 9/24/2024 reflected a [AGE] year-old man, born on [DATE], who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He was diagnosed with Schizophrenia (which was a severe mental disorder having caused hallucination, delusions, and disorganized speech,) hypertension (which was 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 · D2024-07-16 · 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 interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the residents right to be free from misappropriation of property for 1 (Resident #1) of 6 residents reviewed for misappropriation of property. The facility failed to prevent the misappropriation of Resident #1's Ondansetron (generic Zofran), a medication used to treat nausea by CMA-A. This failure placed the resident at risk of not receiving the prescribed medication. Findings include: Record Review of Resident #1's Face Sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses include Alzheimer's Disease (brain disorder that causes problems with memory), heart disease (disease that affects the heart), Atherosclerotic Heart Disease of Native Coronary Artery without Angina Pectorisis (arteries leading to the heart are blocked), Edema (swelling caused by fluid accumulation) and Insomnia (trouble falling or staying asleep). Record Review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] reflected a BIMS score of…
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 · Fcited before2023-07-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 safety in the facility's only kitchen. The facility failed to ensure injectable insulin of the staff was not stored with food items in the refrigerator. The facility failed to ensure food items in the refrigerator were not expired. These failures could place residents at risk for transmittable diseases, food-borne illness, and food contamination. Findings included: A.Observations and interview of the refrigerator in the kitchen on 07/24/23 beginning at 9:30 AM revealed there was an insulin injection syringe in a plastic bag stored with other food products in the refrigerator. The insulin label reflected Toujeo (insulin glargine) injection 300 Units/mL (U-300). For subcutaneous use only. Do not remove insulin with syringe. Always use new needle. Do not mix with other insulins. Staff member DA A stated it was her insulin injection syringe. B.Observations of the refrigerator in the kitchen on 07/24/23 beginning at 9:30 AM…
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 · E2023-07-26 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 used psychotropic drugs received gradual dose reductions, and behavioral interventions, unless clinically contraindicated, in an effort to discontinue these drugs for one (Resident #02) of two residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility failed to attempt a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for Resident #02's Clonazepam . These failures could place residents at risk for possible adverse side effects, adverse consequences, decreased quality of life and dependence on unnecessary medications. Findings included Record review of Resident #02's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 05/19/23, reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident had a BIMS score of 10. She had no signs and symptoms of delirium, no hallucinations or delusion, no physical behavioral symptoms and had not rejected care. She had diagnoses which included stroke, non-traumatic brain dysfunction, traumatic brain…
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 before2023-07-26 · 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 maintain an infection and prevention control program that included, at a minimum, a system for preventing and controlling infections for 4 of 7 residents (Residents #39, #36, #15 and #17) reviewed for infection control in that: a) LVN A and MA A did not clean and disinfect the wrist blood pressure monitor when it was used on Resident #39, Resident #36, and Resident #15. b) NA A and NA B used soiled gloves for handling clean gloves while providing incontinent care for Resident #17. These failures could place the residents at the facility at risk of transmission of diseases and infection. Findings included: Record review of Resident #36's face sheet dated 07/25/23 reflected Resident #36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He was a [AGE] year-old male diagnosed with Heart Disease, Edema (swelling), Insomnia, Hypertension (High blood Pressure), Anxiety Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, Pain, Chronic Kidney Disease, Hypothyroidism (Low…
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 · D2023-07-26 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably 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 have reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #1 and #3), reviewed for a call light system, in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 and Resident #3's call buttons were accessible in the event of an emergency or to meet care needs. This failure could affect residents by not having access to call for assistance resulting in needs not being met. Findings include: Record Review of Resident #1's profile revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female. She was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses of Chronic A-Fib, AMS, HTN, Anxiety Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder, Neurocognitive Disorder w/Lewy Bodies (progressive Dementia that affects movement, thinking skills, mood, memory, and behavior), Anal Prolapse and Nontraumatic Chronic Subdural Hemorrhage (bleeding of the brain that does…
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 · D2023-07-26 · 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 Resident #5 Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who need respiratory care were provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 out of 1 resident (Residents #05) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to change and/or label Resident # 05's oxygen equipment per the facility policy and procedure. This failure has the potential to affect residents by placing them at risk for infections and complications associated with respiratory equipment failure due to exposure to equipment that has been used for an amount of time beyond appropriate or intended use limits. Findings included: Record review of Resident #05's History and Physical revealed a [AGE] year-old male. His diagnoses included paranoid schizophrenia, extrapyramidal ( relating to movement of nerve cells in the spine) and movement disorder depressive disorder, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hepatomegaly ( enlarged liver), shortness of breath, dyspnea (…
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 HAMILTON COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT — 10 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 | 5 of 5 | 2.3 | +2.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 2.6 | +2.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.1 | +1.9 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
The other 9 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.3★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HILLVIEW SKILLED CARE, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 04/01/2019 |
| HOOPER, GRADY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2019 |
| JOHNSON, DAVE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 04/01/2019 |
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.
About 72% 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.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 675388. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-15, 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.