No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Graham Oaks Care Center

1325 First St, Graham, TX 76450 · For profit - Corporation · 110 certified beds · (940) 549-8787 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Flagged for abuseBehavioral-health or dementia-care citation — no harm found (F0758)1 actual-harm citation2 immediate-jeopardy citations CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$34,690 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

Worth asking about
  • CMS has flagged it for abuse
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Oct 2025
  • it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • inspectors recorded 2 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • the CMS record shows $34,690 in federal fines (most recent 2025-10-10)
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
  • nursing-staff turnover (94%) runs well above the national median (45%)

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.

1/5
CMS overall
1 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 1 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
618 Oak St · (940) 549-6953 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1229 State Highway 16 S · (940) 549-3000 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
702 East St · (940) 456-2868 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
Eastside0.2 mi
705 Indiana St · (940) 549-0217

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 3 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 2 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 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 fell from 3 to 1 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.

Overall rating1★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased28.9%15.8%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight1.1%3.0%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.3%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.7%0.8%2.0%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms1.9%2.4%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.7%0.0%0.1%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury9.6%3.3%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened9.4%14.0%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication11.8%18.0%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%98.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers5.5%3.8%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control16.2%13.4%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table13.1%9.6%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.5%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%88.0%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission18.7%25.7%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit23.7%12.3%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.712.171.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days4.222.061.80worse

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.

55.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 60 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

55.5%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.7%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
51.7%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.30U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.22hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 51.7% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 29 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 48% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF55.5%CMS range 43.1–66.251.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.7%CMS range 7.9–16.610.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge51.7%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge55.2%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge51.7%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified94.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 settingnot 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 dischargenot 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.5%CMS range 4.0–12.97.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.141.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.37
RN hours/ resident / day
0.82
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.80
Aide hours/ resident / day
2.99
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.18
RN hoursweekends
94.4%
Total nursing turnover
100.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 110 beds and averages 76.0 residents a day — about 69% occupied, or roughly 34 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 2.99 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.37 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.80 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 2.57 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.17 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.44 to 0.18 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 94% is well above the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

1
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-04-09)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2025-01-22)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Immediate jeopardy · J2025-10-10 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse and neglect for one (Resident #1) of 8 residents reviewed for neglect. On 9/2/25 the facility allowed Hospitality Aide A to perform a transfer on Resident #1 and failed to ensure she was trained and permitted per her job description to use Resident #1's personal medical transfer equipment to perform a transfer. No staff in the facility had been trained in the use of Resident #1's personal medical transfer equipment, and the Director of Therapy had asked the former DON to ensure her staff did not use the device. The transfer resulted in a fall during which Resident #1 received a fracture in her left knee. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The IJ began on 9/2/25 and ended on 9/3/25. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure placed residents at risk for serious injuries, a decline in the resident's condition, hospitalization, or death. Findings included:…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-10-10 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 1 (Resident #1) of 8 residents reviewed for accident hazards were free from accident hazards in their environment. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 1's received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents. The lift used by facility staff was not an adequate assistive device since there was no manual for proper staff training and the device was the personal property of Resident #1. This resulted in a fall during a transfer in which Resident #1 received a fracture on her left knee on 9/3/25. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The IJ began on 9/2/25 and ended on 9/3/25. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure placed residents at risk for serious injuries, a decline in the resident's condition, hospitalization, or death. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's admission Sheet, not dated, reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Actual harm · G2023-12-07 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolated
    Provide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
    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 pain management was provided to residents who require such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 3 (Resident # 55) residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #55's pain was managed at a level that did not interfere with the resident's sleep or day to day activities This deficient practice could place residents at risk of pain, discomfort, and a diminished quality of life. Findings included: A review of Resident #55's Electronic Health Record (EHR) indicated her admission date was 05/31/2023 with relevant diagnoses of pain in left ankle and joints of left foot, abnormal gait, and mobility (difficulty walking and moving from place to place), muscle atrophy (decrease in size of the muscle tissue from not using the muscle). Review of Resident #55's routine medications indicated : Tylenol 500…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-06-14 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
    Develop 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 review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 5 of 7 residents (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, and Resident #6) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure the staff developed the comprehensive care plan goals and interventions from the comprehensive assessment for Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, and Resident #6. The facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plans for Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #4 described the resident's preference and potential for future discharge. The facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plans for Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #4 documented a desire to return to the community was assessed. This failure could place the residents…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-09 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 environment was as free of accident hazards as is possible and each resident receives adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 of 77 resident rooms observed (Resident #8) reviewed for accidents and hazards. Facility staff failed to remove an extension cord from Resident #8's room. This deficient practice could place resident at risk of a fire hazard or tripping.The findings include: Record review of Resident #8's face sheet dated 04/07/26 revealed an [AGE] year-old female admitted to facility 09/23/25 with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (lung disease) and Dementia (decline in cognitive function). Record review of Resident #8's MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the BIMS score was 7 of 15 reflective of severe cognitive impairment. Resident #8 ambulatory with wheelchair and partial assistance with transfers. Record review of Resident #8's Comprehensive Care Plan dated 04/01/26 the resident has…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-25 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide 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 prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infections for one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed for infection control practices. CNA A failed to perform proper hand hygiene including changing gloves while providing incontinence care to Resident #1 on 03/25/26. This failure could place residents at risk for the spread of infection.Findings included: Record Review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 03//25/26, revealed an 87- year- old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder ( a condition that affects bladder function due to nervous system problems), Cellulitis of right lower limb (a common bacterial infection that occurs when it enters a crack or break in the skin), cutaneous abscess of right upper limb (a pus-filled…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-05-23 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
    Safeguard 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 clinical records that were complete and/or accurate for 1 of 10 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for clinical records in that: The RN A did not document Resident # 1 was transferred to the ER on 5.12.25. This failure could place residents at risk of inaccurate and incomplete clinical records resulting in an inaccuracy in the care the resident received. The findings include: Record review Record review of Resident # 1's Face Sheet revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female originally admitted to the facility on 4.20.25 and readmitted on 5.20.25. She had diagnoses of fracture of hip, end stage renal disease (last stage of kidney failure) osteoporosis (porous brittle bone that breaks easily with spontaneous fractures common), and calciphylaxis (rare and life-threatening syndrome which involves calcium buildup in the skin and fat tissue leading to clotting and painful lesions). Record review of admission MDS dated 5.3.25 documented Resident #1 had 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-01-22 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation , interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 3 of 24 residents (Resident #4, Resident #44 and Resident #76) reviewed for comprehensive person-centered care plans. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4's comprehensive care plan was person centered and measurable when addressing Resident #4's Tobacco use. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #44's comprehensive care plan contained the resident's use of Trapeze bar (medical device used to help patient move and positions themselves in bed) for bed mobility. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 76's comprehensive care plan contained Resident #76's amputation . 4. The facility failed to ensure Resident #76's use of a fall…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-01-22 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    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 assessments accurately reflected the resident status for 2 of 11 residents (Residents #4 and #24) reviewed for assessments . 1. The Facility failed to ensure Resident #4's MDS was accurately completed with the residents tobacco use. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #24's MDS was accurately completed with Resident #24's anticoagulant. These failures could place residents at risk by decreasing the accurate information available to determine the care and services needed for each resident. The findings include: 1. Record review of Resident # 4's face sheet, dated 1/22/2025, revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #4 had diagnoses which included Rhabdomyolysis (rare muscle injury where your muscles break down), high blood pressure and congestive heart failure. Record review of Resident #4's Annual MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Section C- Cognitive Patterns BIMS score of 5, which…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-18 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolated
    Develop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement written policies and procedures prohibited and prevented abuse, neglect, and exploitation, of residents and misappropriation of resident property for 1 of 4 employee files (Employee C) reviewed for abuse protocol. The facility failed to complete annual Criminal Background Checks for Employee C. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Findings include: In a record review of Employee C's personnel file reflected the facility did not complete annual Criminal History checks. The last check completed was date 12/2/22. In an interview on 10/16/24 at 4:45 PM, the Human Resource Specialist said the annual Criminal History checks for Employee C were not completed. He said it was the responsibility of the Human Resource Specialist to ensure reference checks were completed and documented during annual review. He said Criminal History checks helped prevent abuse . Human Resource Specialist stated he has worked for facility for only 3 weeks and has not completed reviews 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-12-07 · tag F0655 — pattern
    Create and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
    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 develop and implement a baseline care plan within 48 hours for 2 of 5 residents (Residents #39 and #56) whose record were reviewed for recent admission to the facility, in that: 1. Resident #39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and a baseline care plan had not been developed within 48 hours of his admission. 2. Resident #56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and a baseline care plan had not been developed within 48 hours of her admission. This failure placed the residents at risk for not receiving care and services to meet their needs and to promote their physical and mental health and well-being within their new living environment. The findings included: 1. Resident #39 Review of Resident #39's admission Record, dated 12/07/2023, revealed an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included: Type 2 diabetes mellitus with foot ulcer; hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol); hypertension (high blood pressure);…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-12-07 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolated
    Develop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review the facility failed to implement their written policies and procedures to prohibit abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property for 1 of 8 employee files (Employee C) reviewed for abuse protocol. The facility did not complete reference checks on Employee C, with a hire date of 11/27/2023, prior to employment at the facility. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Findings included: In a record review of Employee C's personnel file revealed the facility did not complete reference checks with a hire date of 11/27/2023 prior to employment. In an interview on 12/07/23 at 11:30 AM, the Human Resource Specialist said the reference checks for Employee C were not completed. He said it was the responsibility of the Human Resource Coordinator to ensure reference checks are completed and documented prior to hire. He said reference checks helps prevent abuse. In an interview on 12/07/23 at 1:54 PM, the Administrator said Human Resources should be completing employee reference checks prior…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-12-07 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to update the comprehensive care plan after the assessment for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #'s 53) reviewed for plan of care revision. The facility failed to include in the care plan, nutritional interventions for a significant weight loss for Resident #53 after the 11/26/2023 Comprehensive MDS . This failure could place the residents at risk of staff and providers not having the most current information for the Resident's plan of care. Findings included: Record review of Resident #53's electronic health record revealed a [AGE] year-old male with a, re-admission date 11/21/2023, Diagnoses: dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), essential (primary) hypertension (high blood pressure), Alzheimer's disease (progressive memory loss), atrial fibrillation (the hearts upper chambers beat out of sequence with the lower chambers which can lead to poor blood flow, blood clots and stroke), anxiety disorder (feelings of worry and fear that interfere with daily…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-12-07 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolated
    Implement 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who have not used psychotropic drugs are not given these drugs unless the medication was necessary to treat a specific condition as diagnosed and documented in the clinical record and gradual dose reductions were attempted for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #56) whose records were reviewed for unnecessary medications. Resident #56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her admission orders included an order for the antipsychotic medication Zyprexa 5 mg for a diagnosis of depression, with a start date on 04/18/2023. She did not have a diagnosis or indication of use for antipsychotic medication. The facility's failure placed the resident at risk for adverse side effects from receiving antipsychotic medication that was not indicated for use. The findings included: Review of Resident #56's admission Record, dated 12/07/2023, revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included: iron deficiency…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-08-09 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
    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 report the results of investigations of allegations of abuse in accordance with State law, including to the State Survey Agency, within 5 working days of the incident for 4 (Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #7and Resident #12) of 10 residents reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to report the investigations findings of abuse when Resident #3 attempted to remove Resident #2 from dinner table resulting Resident #2 receiving nail marks on her arm from Resident #3. The facility failed to report the investigation findings of abuse when Resident #12 slapped Resident #7 in the face while both residents were passing in the hall. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse. Findings include: Resident #2 Record review of Resident #2's, , MDS dated [DATE] indicated the resident was an [AGE] year-old female with a BIMS of 3 (severely cognitively impaired). The residents Medical Diagnoses were Dementia (a decline in cognitive abilities), and Psychotic…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · C2025-11-08 · tag F0844 — widespread
    Follow rules about disclosure of ownership requirements and tell the state agency about changes in ownership and/or administrative personnel.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide written notice to the State Agency responsible for licensing the facility at the time of change, for a change in the facility's administrator for 1 of 1 facility. The facility failed to notify the State Agency of a change in the facilities administrator within 30 days. This failure could result in the lack of knowledge and inability to connect with the appropriate leadership of the facility. Findings included: In an observation on 11/07/2025 at 11:45 a.m., the investigator located the named administrator of the facility in TULIP during offsite preparation and documented the name for contact and accountability purposes. In an interview on 11/08/25 at 10:45 a.m., the facility Administrator introduced herself and indicated she started as the Administrator of the facility in May 2025. She was not the individual named in TULIP. In an interview on 11/08/25 at 3:02 p.m., CNA A stated that she started working at the facility in June 2025 and the ADM is the only administrator she had seen since she had worked…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$34,690 in federal fines across 2 penalties.

  • $17,345 — penalty dated 2025-10-10
  • $17,345 — penalty dated 2025-10-10

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 1 of 52.1-1.1 vs chain
Health inspection 2 of 52.7-0.7 vs chain
Staffing 1 of 51.1-0.1 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 53.2-0.2 vs chain
The other 148 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.1★, per CMS)
1 of 5Afton Oaks Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterHouston, TX 1 of 5Arlington Heights Health and Rehabilitation CenterFort Worth, TX 1 of 5Beltline Healthcare CenterGarland, TX 1 of 5Bluebonnet Nursing & RehabilitationKarnes City, TX 1 of 5Bluebonnet Point WellnessBullard, TX 1 of 5Brentwood Terrace Healthcare And RehabilitationParis, TX 1 of 5Buena Vida Nursing and Rehab-San AntonioSan Antonio, TX 1 of 5Cottonwood Nursing & RehabilitationDenton, TX 1 of 5Countryview Nursing & RehabilitationTerrell, TX 1 of 5Dogwood Trails ManorWoodville, TX 1 of 5Downtown Health and Rehabilitation CenterFort Worth, TX 1 of 5Estates Healthcare and Rehabilitation CenterFort Worth, TX 1 of 5Fair Park Health & Rehabilitation CenterDallas, TX 1 of 5Five Points Nursing & Rehabilitation of College StCollege Station, TX 1 of 5Five Points at Lake Highlands Nursing and RehabDallas, TX 1 of 5Five Points of PflugervillePflugerville, TX 1 of 5Franklin Heights Nursing & RehabilitationEl Paso, TX 1 of 5Gilmer Nursing & RehabilitationGilmer, TX 1 of 5Grace Pointe Wellness CenterEl Paso, TX 1 of 5Granbury Care CenterGranbury, TX 1 of 5Greenhill VillasMount Pleasant, TX 1 of 5Heritage At Longview Healthcare CenterLongview, TX 1 of 5Huebner Creek Health & Rehabilitation CenterSan Antonio, TX 1 of 5Interlochen Health and Rehabilitation CenterArlington, TX 1 of 5Kenedy Health & RehabilitationKenedy, TX 1 of 5Kennedy Health & RehabLufkin, TX 1 of 5Lake Lodge Nursing & RehabilitationLake Worth, TX 1 of 5Lampstand Nursing and RehabilitationBryan, TX 1 of 5Lancaster Nursing & RehabilitationLancaster, TX 1 of 5Marine Creek Nursing & RehabilitationFort Worth, TX 1 of 5Mesa Vista Inn Health CenterSan Antonio, TX 1 of 5Mountain View Health & RehabilitationEl Paso, TX 1 of 5Navasota Nursing & RehabilitationNavasota, TX 1 of 5Normandy Terrace Nursing & Rehabilitation CenterSan Antonio, TX 1 of 5North Pointe Nursing and RehabilitationWatauga, TX 1 of 5Park Place Care CenterGeorgetown, TX 1 of 5Parkview Manor Nursing and RehabilitationWeimar, TX 1 of 5Peach Tree PlaceWeatherford, TX 1 of 5Pebble Creek Nursing CenterEl Paso, TX 1 of 5Pecan Tree Rehab And Healthcare CenterGainesville, TX

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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
COUNTY OF THROCKMORTONOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 07/01/2022
BROCKMAN, GREGORYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2021
GOBER, KIRBYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 06/20/2014
HIBBITTS, KASEYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 06/18/2020
HODGES, CALEBIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2023
MITCHELL, KLAYTONIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/31/2020
WELLS, CASEYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 05/10/2004
HUGGINS, LINDAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 07/01/2022
WILLIG, ZACHARYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2025
GRAHAM I ENTERPRISES, LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2019
BLAKE, GARYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2019
BLAKE, MALISAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/01/2019
COOK, ROXYIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 04/12/2025
PURDY, AARONIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 04/12/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 14 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$5.6M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-5.9%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 57%Medicare 9%Other / private 34%

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

$225per resident / day
operating cost
$6,854per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$213per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Texas
$5,627/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$7,604/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,666/mo
Assisted living

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 455968. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-09, 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.

What to do next