Bear Creek Nursing And Rehabilitation
3729 Ira E Woods Avenue, Grapevine, TX 76051 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 100 certified beds · (817) 527-7500 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- 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 (F0600), cited Oct 2024
- inspectors cited 5 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (37) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $122,257 in federal fines (most recent 2025-12-21)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 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.
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 | 18.2% | 15.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.4% | 3.0% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 2.0% | 0.8% | 2.0% | typical |
| 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 | 0.0% | 3.3% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 25.9% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 26.2% | 18.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.1% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.2% | 3.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.5% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 2.8% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.9% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.8% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 30.7% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.8% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.46 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.35 | 2.06 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
60.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 145 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 57.5% 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 47 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 0.61 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 89% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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 | 60.0%CMS range 51.7–67.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.0%CMS range 6.9–14.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 57.5% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 discharge | 53.2% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 57.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 identified | 97.4% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 90.5% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 11.7% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.9%CMS range 3.6–9.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.07 | 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 100 beds and averages 74.1 residents a day — about 74% occupied, or roughly 26 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.31 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 1.97 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 2.99 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.43 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.75 to 0.47 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 55% is about the same as 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.
37 citations, most serious first. The 16 most serious are shown; the remaining 21 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2025-12-21 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to have policies and processes in place to ensure the accurate dispensing and administering of medications. The admitting nurse for Resident #1 entered medications into Resident #1's medical record without verifying them against an accurate and current medication list, and the facility's physician subsequently signed the medication orders as entered. This resulted in Resident #1 being administered multiple doses of medications that were not prescribed to him. Resident #1 was found unresponsive and was subsequently sent to the hospital. On 12/20/25 at 6:10 p.m. an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified. While the IJ was removed on 12/21/25,…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2025-12-21 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 were free from significant medication errors for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for medication accuracy. The facility failed to ensure they had processes in place to ensure accurate verification and reconciliation of physician's orders and medications upon admission. The admitting nurse for Resident #1 entered medications into Resident #1's medical record without verifying them against an accurate and current medication list, and the facility's physician subsequently signed the medication orders as entered. This resulted in Resident #1 being administered multiple doses of medications that were not prescribed to him. Resident #1 was found unresponsive and was subsequently sent to the hospital. On 12/20/25 at 6:10 p.m. an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified. While the IJ was removed on 12/21/25, the facility remained out of compliance at a severity level of no actual harm with the potential for more than minimal harm and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2024-10-25 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — patternImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to consult with the resident's physician of a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status (that is, a deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications); a need to alter treatment significantly (that is, a need to discontinue an existing form of treatment due to adverse consequences, or to commence a new form of treatment) for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to notify the MD when Resident #1, who was a diabetic resident, had an elevated and abnormal lab with a blood glucose of 334 on 09/17/24, followed by a deterioration through 10/06/24 of his willingness to eat. Resident #1 had a change in condition which included him becoming unresponsive on 10/06/24. Resident #1 was sent to the hospital on [DATE] and was found to have a blood glucose reading of 1,139 (Normal glucose range for 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2024-10-25 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — patternProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for neglect. 1. The facility neglected to ensure Resident #1 who was a diabetic resident, was accurately assessed, monitored and treated for a change in condition he had when he had an elevated and abnormal lab with a blood glucose of 334 on 09/17/24, followed by a deterioration through 10/06/24 of his willingness to eat. Resident #1 had a change in condition which included him becoming unresponsive on 10/06/24. Resident #1 was sent to the hospital on [DATE] and was found to have a blood glucose reading of 1,139 (Normal glucose range for a person with diabetes who has well-controlled levels is 72-99 while fasting and up to 140 about 2 hours after eating) and an Hemoglobin A1C (three month average of blood sugar) of 13 (normal range is below 5.7). 2. The facility neglected…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2024-10-25 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive resident-centered care plan for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for quality of care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 who was a diabetic resident, was accurately assessed, monitored and treated for a change in condition he had when he had an elevated and abnormal lab with a blood glucose of 334 on 09/17/24, followed by a deterioration of his willingness to eat then a change in condition which included him becoming unresponsive. At the hospital, Resident #1 was found to have a blood glucose reading of 1,139 (Normal glucose range for a person with diabetes who has well-controlled levels is 72-99 while fasting and up to 140 about 2 hours after eating) and an Hemoglobin A1C three month average of blood sugar) of 13 (normal range is below 5.7). 2. The facility charge nurses across all shifts failed to check Resident #1'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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2023-10-30 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as is possible and each resident received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for supervision. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1, who had impaired cognition and was a high fall risk, was provided with adequate supervision to prevent her from eloping from the facility. On 10/16/23 Resident #1, who resided on the second floor and used a wheelchair for mobility, used the stairs to get to the bottom floor and was found outside of the facility. The noncompliance was identified as past non-compliance. The Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) began on 10/16/23 and ended on 10/20/23. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure placed residents at risk of harm and/or serious injury. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 10/30/23, revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-06-27 · 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 maintain an Infection Prevention and Control Program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 3 of 4 Residents (Resident #1, Resident #2 and Resident #3) observed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure CNA A performed hand hygiene during incontinent care on Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3 on 06/27/26. These failures could place the residents at risk of cross-contamination and development of infection.Findings included: 1. Record Review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 03/29/26, reflected an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had a BIMS score of 0 which indicated she was severely cognitively impaired. She required maximum assistance with transfers, toileting, and personal hygiene. She was frequently incontinent of urine and always incontinent 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 · Dcited before2026-06-27 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents receive adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for two of three residents (Resident #2 and Resident #3) reviewed for accident hazards/supervision/devices 1. The Facility failed to ensure CNA A and CNA B used a gait belt when transferring Resident #2 from her wheelchair to the bed and instead lifted the resident under her arms and by her pants on 06/27/26. 2. The Facility failed to ensure CNA A and CNA B used a gait belt when transferring Resident #3 from her wheelchair to the bed and instead lifted the resident under her arms on 06/27/26. These failures could affect the residents by placing the residents at risk for discomfort, pain, falls, injuries, and skin tears.Findings included: 1. Record Review of Resident #2's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 04/21/26, reflected an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had a BIMS score of 0 which indicated she was severely cognitively…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-27 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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 a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for two of four residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for incontinence care. 1. The facility failed to ensure staff provided Resident #1 timely perineal care after an incontinent episode when they failed to check and change the resident from 07:30 a.m. to 1:15 p.m. on 06/27/26. 2. The facility failed to ensure staff provided Resident #2 timely perineal care after an incontinent episode when they failed to check and change the resident from 07:45 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on 06/27/26. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving appropriate care to address their incontinence and could increase the risk of urinary tract infections.Findings included:1. Record Review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 03/29/26, reflected an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. 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 · D2026-05-07 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents are offered a therapeutic diet when there is a nutritional problem, and the healthcare provider orders a therapeutic diet for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #76) reviewed for food and nutrition. The facility failed to ensure Resident #76 received his nutritional supplement beverage (magic cup) during the lunch service on 05/06/26. This failure could lead to nutritional deficits and unintended weight loss. Findings include: Review of Resident #76's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 04/10/26, reflected he was a [AGE] year-old male who had recently readmitted to the facility on [DATE] after originally admitting on 10/30/25. He had a BIMS of 00 indicating severe cognitive impairment. His active diagnoses included malnutrition, adult failure to thrive, and cognitive communication deficit. His MDS indicated he had recently lost weight. Review of Resident #76's Order Summary Report, dated 05/07/26, reflected an order for Magic Cups two…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-07 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who required dialysis received such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #85) reviewed for dialysis. 1. The facility failed to ensure dialysis communication forms were completed for Resident #85 after returning from dialysis treatment. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #85 had an order to complete dialysis treatment. These failures could place residents at risk of inadequate monitoring after returning to facility. Findings included: Review of Resident #85's None of the Above MDS Assessment, dated 04/26/26, reflected she was a [AGE] year-old who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her MDS indicated she had a BIMS of 06, which meant she had severe cognitive impairment. Her active diagnoses included renal insufficiency, renal failure, or end-stage renal disease (the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-07 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals, to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 3 medication carts (Hall 300 nurse cart) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure that one bottle of OTC Simethicone 125 mg, with an expiration date of February 2026, and Benzonatate 100 mg capsule prescribed to Resident #29, with an expiration date of 03/26/26, had been removed from the 300-hall nurse cart. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving medications that were ineffective. Findings included: Record review of Resident #29's Face Sheet, dated 05/07/26, revealed she was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #29's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed she had the following diagnoses: COPD (progressive lung disease…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-07 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the clinical records were maintained in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices and were complete and accurately documented for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #76) records reviewed for accurate documentation. RN D failed to accurately document in Resident #76's clinical record when he documented on 05/06/26 that Resident #76 received his magic cup during the lunch meal when he had not received it. This failure could affect the residents medical record not being an accurate representation of the resident's medical condition or medical needs. Findings included: Review of Resident #76's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 04/10/26, reflected he was a [AGE] year-old male who had recently readmitted to the facility on [DATE] after originally admitting on 10/30/25. He had a BIMS of 00 indicating severe cognitive impairment. His active diagnoses included malnutrition, adult failure to thrive, and cognitive communication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-07 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice 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, record review, and observation, the facility failed to collaborate with hospice representatives and coordinate the hospice care planning process for each resident receiving hospice services, to ensure quality of care for the resident, ensuring communication with the hospice medical director, the resident's attending physician, and others participating in the provision of care for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #13) reviewed for hospice services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #13, who was receiving hospice services, had a physician order for hospice care. This failure could place residents who receive hospice services at risk of receiving inadequate end-of-life care, coordination of care and communication of resident needs. Findings included: Record review of Resident #13's Face Sheet, dated 05/07/26, revealed she was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE].Record review of Resident #13's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed she had the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-19 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to make prompt efforts to resolve grievances and keep the residents' RP appropriately apprised of progress toward resolution for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for grievances. The facility failed to notify Resident #1's RP the resolution of her filed grievances on [DATE]. This failure could place the residents at risk of unresolved grievances and decreased quality of life. Findings included:Record review of Resident #1's admission record, initially admitted on [DATE], reflected the resident was an [AGE] year old female with diagnoses that included vascular dementia (decreased blood flow to the brain), hypertension (the pressure in the blood vessels are consistently too high), irritable bowel syndrome (condition that affects stomach and intestines),. Record review of Resident #1's admission MDS assessment, dated [DATE], reflected Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 2 out of 15, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Record review of Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-19 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed, in accordance with State and Federal laws, to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature controls and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for medication storage. The facility failed to secure all medications in a locked storage area when Resident #1's Labetalol HCl and Pantoprazole Sodium medications were found on the floor approximately 2-3 inches from resident's bed on [DATE]. This failure could place residents at risk of access to medications not approved for administration by their physician. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's admission record, initially admitted on [DATE], reflected the resident was an [AGE] year old female with diagnoses that included hypertension and irritable bowel syndrome. Record review of Resident #1's admission MDS assessment, dated [DATE], reflected the resident had a BIMS score of 2 out of 15,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 21 citations
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-03-20 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 were free of any significant medication errors for 2 of 4 residents (Residents #33 and #99) reviewed for pharmacy services. 1. The facility failed to ensure RN C checked the current physician's orders before administering a PRN Lorazepam (a medication used to treat anxiety) medication to Resident #33 on 03/03/25, who did not have an active order of PRN Lorazepam. 2. The facility failed to ensure RN F administered the correct dosage of PRN Lorazepam (a medication used to treat anxiety) to Resident #99 on 10/31/24 and 11/14/24. These failures could place residents at risk and jeopardize their health and safety. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #33's admission Record, dated 03/19/25, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #33's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 12/13/24, reflected she did not have a BIMS score calculated . Her active diagnoses…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-03-20 · tag F0914 — patternProvide bedrooms that don't allow residents to see each other when privacy is needed.
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 ensure resident rooms were equipped to assure full visual privacy for each resident for 4 of 20 residents (Residents #8, #9, #23, and #25) reviewed for privacy. The facility failed to ensure the rooms of Residents #8, #9, #23, and #25 were equipped with privacy curtains to assure full visual privacy. This failure could place the residents at risk of being embarrassed if they were exposed during care. Findings included: Observation and interview on 03/18/25 at 10:04 AM revealed Resident #23's bed had no privacy curtain in place. Curtain rail and clips were present on the ceiling, but no curtain was in place. Resident #23 stated she worried someone could walk in and see her being changed or being bathed. Resident #8 had a privacy curtain that only separated her bed from Resident #23's bed, but did not provide privacy at the end of her bed. Resident #8 was non-verbal. Observation on 03/18/25 at 10:23 AM revealed Resident #9's bed had no privacy curtain. Curtain rail and clips were present on the ceiling, but…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-20 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment that describes the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 16 residents (Resident #5) reviewed for care plan accuracy. The facility failed to develop and implement a care plan for Resident #5, which addressed her use of an anti-depressant medication, Sertraline. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving needed services due to inaccurate comprehensive care plans. Findings included: Record review of Resident #5's admission Record, dated 03/19/25, reflected she was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the residents environment remained free of accident hazards as possible for 4 of 20 residents (Residents #6, #8, #23, and #47) reviewed for accidents and safety. The facility failed to maintain the sharps containers, which are used to store used syringes and lancets, in a safe manner to prevent the containers from being overfilled and creating a safety hazard in the rooms of Residents #6, #8, #23, and #47. This failure could place residents at risk of exposure to bloodborne pathogens. Findings included: Observation on 03/18/25 at 10:04 AM revealed the sharps container, located in the bathroom for Residents #8 and #23, was filled past the fill line. The flap for depositing sharps in the container was inoperable. Observation on 03/18/25 at 12:33 PM revealed the sharps container, located in the bathroom for Residents #6 and #47, was filled past the fill line, up to the flap for depositing sharps rendering the flap inoperable. There were two used lancets placed on top of the flap. Observation on 03/19/25…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-20 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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 are fed by enteral means, received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding, for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #179) reviewed for enteral nutrition. The facility failed to follow physician orders for Resident 179's enteral feeding tube to be flushed with 55 ml of water every 1 hour. This failure could place residents who had gastrostomy tube at risk for fluid deficit. Findings included: Record review of Resident #179's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had diagnoses that included gastrostomy status (tube inserted through the belly that brings nutrition directly to the stomach) and dysphasia (swallowing difficulties). Resident #179's BIMS score was 09 revealing moderate cognition. The MDS further revealed Section K (Nutritional approaches) indicated the resident's nutritional…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-20 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #55) reviewed for medication administration. The facility failed to ensure that MA H administered Resident #55's Lidoderm Patch 5% (Lidocaine); not a Lidocaine 4% patch. This failure could place residents who receive medications at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of the medications. Findings included: Record review of Resident #55's comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] and a readmission on [DATE]. He had a BIMS score of 05, which indicated Resident #55's cognition was severely impaired. The MDS reflected Resident #55 required a scheduled pain medication regimen. Record review of Resident 55's care plan dated 08/12/24 reflected,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-20 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled with currently accepted professional principles, and included the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable for and 1 of 3 medication carts (Hall 100 and 200 nurse medication carts) reviewed for medication storage. The facility failed to ensure the nurses cart for 100 and 200 halls did not contain insulin, nebulizers, and inhalers that were opened and not labeled with the open date. This failure could place residents at risk of adverse medication reactions. Findings included: Observation on [DATE] at 9:07 AM revealed the nurse's medication cart for 100 and 200 halls with LVN A had the following opened medications with no open date labeled: 1. Lantus insulin pen 2. Symbicort inhaler 3. Azelastine nasal spray 4. 4 boxes Ipratropium Bromide and albuterol sulfate inhalation solution Interview on [DATE] at 12:31 PM with LVN A, 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 · Dcited before2025-03-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 3 refrigerators reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to store specimen swabs in the specimen refrigerator, and the specimen was stored in the 100 and 200 refrigerators with medications. This failure could place the residents at risk of exposure to cross contamination and infections. Findings included: Observation on 03/19/25 at 9:48 AM with LVN A of the 100 and 200 halls medication room refrigerator revealed a flu swab specimen wrapped in plastic paper dated 03/11/25 stored with other medications in the refrigerator. Interview on 03/19/25 at 12:34 PM with LVN A revealed she was unaware the swab was stored in the medication refrigerator. She stated the facility had a specimen refrigerator on the 300 and 400 halls medication room, where they put specimen for collection by the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-04 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
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 notify the resident, resident's representative, and ombudsman of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move, in writing and in a language and manner they understood for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for discharge rights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was notified in writing of the effective date of transfer, the reason for the transfer, the location to which the resident would be transferred, or the right of appeal of the transfer. The failure could affect all residents who were transferred or discharged to the hospital at risk of having their discharge rights violated. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's admission Record, dated 02/04/25, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 11/12/24 to an Acute care hospital. Resident #1 was her own RP. Record review of Resident #1's None of the above MDS Assessment, dated 11/12/24, reflected she had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-04 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services 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 residents who required dialysis received such services, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for dialysis. The facility failed to ensure staff were trained on how to provide care and services to Resident #1 who utilized peritoneal dialysis after she was admitted to the facility. The failure could affect residents who received peritoneal dialysis treatments and could result in inadequate care of dialysis treatment. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's admission Record, dated 02/04/25, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 11/12/24 to an acute care hospital. Resident #1 was her own responsible party. Record review of Resident #1's None of the above MDS Assessment, dated 11/12/24, reflected she had a BIMS of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment. Resident #1's had a diagnosis of dependence on renal…
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 · D2024-11-27 · tag F0551 — isolatedGive the resident's representative the ability to exercise the resident's rights.
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 extend to the resident representative the right to make decisions on behalf of the resident for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for resident representative rights. The facility failed to contact Resident #1's representative/responsible party before administering her PRN medication. On 11/14/2024, Resident #1's MAR revealed LVN A administered to Resident #1 a dose of her prescribed Lorazepam (a medication used to treat seizures or decrease anxiety). LVN A failed to contact the RP prior to administering the Lorazepam as instructed in Resident #1's electronic medical record where it states in capital letters, CALL [RP] BEFORE GIVING ANY PRN MEDICATION. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving medication or treatment without consent. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's undated face sheet reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on hospice on 08/01/24. Resident #1 diagnoses…
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 before2024-10-25 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to make prompt efforts by the facility to resolve grievances the resident may have, receive and track grievances through to their conclusions; leading any necessary investigations by the facility; and the facility failed to ensure that all written grievance decisions include the date the grievance was received, a summary statement of the resident's grievance, the steps taken to investigate the grievance, a summary of the pertinent findings or conclusions regarding the resident's concerns(s), a statement as to whether the grievance was confirmed or not confirmed, any corrective action taken or to be taken by the facility as a result of the grievance, and the date the written decision was issued for one (Resident #2) of two residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to complete and/or provide a grievance form when the RP for Resident #2 verbally voiced numerous concerns about the resident's care; nor was there evidence the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-15 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a safe, sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior for 2 of 18 residents (Residents #2 and #32) of residents reviewed for safe clean homelike environment. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 had a clean privacy curtain. 2. The facility failed to ensure Residents #32's bed curtain was free from a dried brown substance. These failures could affect residents and place them at risk for not having a safe and sanitary homelike environment. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #2's Face Sheet, dated 02/14/24, revealed Resident #2 was an [AGE] year-old male, who was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] and initially admitted on [DATE]. Resident #2's diagnoses included End Stage Renal Disease, Dependence on Renal Dialysis, Anemia in Chronic Kidney Disease, Acute and Chronic Respiratory Failure, and dementia. Review of Resident #2's quarterly MDS, dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-15 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — patternHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to use the services of a registered nurse for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week for 7 (12/03/23, 12/23/23, 12/30/23, 12/31/23, 01/28/24, 02/04/24, or 02/11/24) of 90 days reviewed for nursing services. The facility failed to provide RN coverage for 8 consecutive hours daily for 7 (12/03/23, 12/23/23, 12/30/23, 12/31/23, 01/28/24, 02/04/24, or 02/11/24) of 90 days. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of no receiving specific nursing services due to staff being left without supervisory coverage. Findings included: Review of RN Y's timesheet for 12/03/23 reflected she worked from 5:45 AM to 10:45 AM for a total of 5 hours, clocked out for 30 minutes, then worked from 11:15 AM to 4:00 PM for a total of 4.75 hours. Review of RN X's timesheet for 12/03/23 reflected she worked from 1:45 PM to 6:00 PM for a total of 4.25 hours, clocked out for 45 minutes, then worked from 6:45 PM to 11:45 PM for a total of 4.5 hours. Review of RN V's timesheets for 12/23/23 reflected she worked 5 hours, clocked out…
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 before2024-02-15 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored securely for 3 (Resident #2, #20, and #26) of 3 residents and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for one (300 and 500 hall nurses' medication cart) of three medication carts reviewed for labeling and storage and temperatures were maintained within normal ranges for two of two refrigerators reviewed 100,200 halls and 300 and 500 halls. 1. The facility failed to ensure a bottle of dry eye relief was not stored or placed in a secured place for Resident #2. 2. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #26 and #20 's one bottle Saline Nasal Spray Solution, one bottle Systane Solution 0.4-0.3 % and one bottle of Dry eye relief lubricant eye drop propylene glycol 1.0% were securely stored. 3. The facility failed to ensure insulin were dated with opening dates on the nurse's cart that served 300 and 500 halls. 4. The facility failed to ensure vaccines insulins and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-15 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the menu was followed for 1 out of 2 meals (the lunch meal on 02/14/24) reviewed for food and nutrition services. The facility failed to ensure residents on a pureed diet were served pureed bread during the lunch meal on 02/14/24. This failure could place residents at risk for unwanted weight loss, hunger, unwanted weight gain, and metabolic imbalances. Findings included: Review of a list of residents served a pureed diet, dated 02/15/24, reflected the facility had a total of nine residents on a pureed diet. Review of the facility's menu for the lunch meal on 02/14/24 revealed pork chops, pinto beans, turnip greens, banana pudding, and cornbread. Observation and interview on 02/1 4/24 at 12:59 PM with [NAME] Z revealed she brought a pureed sample tray to the conference room. [NAME] Z said she cooked all the food served today (02/14/24) during the lunch meal service. [NAME] Z and the surveyors observed the pureed sample tray had green beans, corn, and pork roast. [NAME] Z said there was not any…
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 · E2024-02-15 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received and the facility provided food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for one of one meal (lunch on 02/14/24) reviewed for food and nutrition services. The facility failed to deliver food at an appetizing taste and temperature for the lunch meal on 02/14/24. The deficient practice could place residents at risk of poor intake of nutrition, weight loss, and illness. Findings included: Interview on 02/13/24 at 10:19 AM with Resident #54 revealed his food was always so salty for every meal and he was concerned because he was supposed to be on a heart healthy diet with low salted foods. Interview on 02/13/24 at 10:53 AM with Resident #9 revealed his food was always cold for every meal. Interview on 02/13/24 at 11:00 AM with Residents #10 and #60 revealed their food was always cold for every meal. Confidential group interview with residents revealed the food was salty and cold for every meal served. Review of the facility's menu for the lunch…
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 before2024-02-15 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard 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 in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that are complete and accurately documented for 3 (Residents #45, #50, and #232 ) of 5 residents reviewed for treatment administration. 1. The facility failed to ensure staff accurately documented on Resident #45's MAR/TAR after performing wound care on Resident #45. 2. The facility failed to document wound care treatments on Resident #50's February 2024 TAR. 3. The facility failed to document wound care treatments on the Treatment Administration Record for Resident #232 indicated by blanks on Resident #232's February 2024 TAR. These failures could put residents at risk for treatment errors and errors in care. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #45's face sheet, dated 02/15/24, revealed the resident was an [AGE] year-old female who originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included a Stage 4 pressure ulcer 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 · D2024-02-15 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary care team for 1 of 11 care plans reviewed (Resident #2). The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's care plan interventions were updated to reflect his improved condition. This failure could place residents at risk for injury. Findings included: Record review of Resident #2's Face Sheet, dated 02/14/24, revealed Resident #2 was an [AGE] year-old male, who was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] and initially admitted on [DATE]. Resident #2's diagnoses included End Stage Renal Disease, Dependence on Renal Dialysis, Anemia in Chronic Kidney Disease, dementia, unsteadiness on feet, and other lack of coordination. Record review of Resident #2's MDS comprehensive assessment, dated 01/20/24, revealed Resident #2 had severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 3. Record review of Resident #2's care plan, dated 10/20/23 and revised 01/26/24, revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-15 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — isolatedEnsure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident received at least three meals daily at regular times comparable to normal mealtimes in the community for one of three Residents (Resident #2) reviewed for meals. The facility did not provide Resident #2 with a meal or snack when going to dialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. This failure could place residents who received dialysis services at risk for decreased intake, unplanned weight loss, and diminished quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #2's Face Sheet, dated 02/14/24, revealed Resident #2 was an [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and initially on 10/8/23. Resident #2's diagnoses included End Stage Renal Disease, Dependence on Renal Dialysis, Anemia in Chronic Kidney Disease, and dementia. Record review of Resident #2's February 2024 Physician orders revealed Resident #2 had admitting diagnoses of End Stage Renal Dialysis and Dependence on Renal Dialysis.…
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 before2024-01-30 · 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 infection prevention and control program designated to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infection for 4 of 4 residents (Residents #1, #2, #3, and #4) reviewed for infection control. LVN A failed to perform hand hygiene between residents while checking the vital signs of Residents #1, #2, #3 and #4 and failed to disinfect the blood pressure cuff between resident use. This failure could place residents at-risk of cross contamination which could result in infections or illness. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's admission MDS assessment, dated 12/26/23, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat) and including elevated blood pressure. Resident #1 was cognitively intact with a BIMS (a structured evaluation to evaluate…
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
$122,257 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $48,945 — penalty dated 2025-12-21
- $65,866 — penalty dated 2024-10-25
- $7,446 — penalty dated 2023-10-30
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 EDURO HEALTHCARE — 34 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 | 1 of 5 | 2.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
The other 33 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAVERICK COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 06/01/2022 |
| MARTINEZ, ALMA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/01/2022 |
| GRAPEVINE NURSING AND REHAB CENTER, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/01/2022 |
| BEWSEY, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/01/2022 |
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.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 676408. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-07, 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.