Cypress Pointe Health & Wellness
8561 Easton Commons Dr., Houston, TX 77095 · For profit - Corporation · 124 certified beds · (832) 497-5479 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- the CMS record shows $8,018 in federal fines (most recent 2024-06-14)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (61%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 17% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 8.7% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.9% | 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 | 1.3% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 2.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.9% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.3% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.0% | 18.0% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.8% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.2% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 12.1% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.1% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.3% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.3% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.3% | 12.3% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.58 | 2.17 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.76 | 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.
65.1% 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 151 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 52.5% 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 99 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 0.83 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 95% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 23% 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 | 65.1%CMS range 56.0–72.5 | 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 | 10.5%CMS range 8.0–14.2 | 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 | 52.5% | 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 | 57.6% | 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 | 42.4% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 0.6% | 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 | 7.7%CMS range 5.1–11.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.35 | 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 124 beds and averages 108.2 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 16 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.43 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.547 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.19 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 2.15 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.55 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.56 to 0.51 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 61% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2026-03-06 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pain management consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #121) reviewed for pain management. - RN B failed to administer Resident #121's Tramadol when she reported pain at 04 out of 10 and she requested the medication on 03/04/26.- RN B failed to complete a follow-up pain assessment after administering the resident 2 tablets of Acetaminophen 500 mg on 03/04/26. This failure could place residents at risk for decreased quality of life, uncontrolled, irretractable pain, and hospitalization. Findings included: Record review of Resident #121's Face Sheet dated 03/04/26 revealed, an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. There were no diagnoses listed on her Face Sheet. Record review of Resident #121's Social Worker admission…
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.
- Actual harm · G2024-06-14 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide necessary treatment and services to promote healing and prevent worsening pressure sores for 1 of 6 resident (Resident #1) reviewed for pressure ulcers. -The facility failed prevent development a pressure ulcer which was not identified or treated for Resident #1. This failure placed residents at risk of delayed identification/treatment of injuries, worsening of injuries, pain and infection. Findings Include: Record review of Resident #1's Face Sheet dated 6/13/2024 revealed, an [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility originally on 3/17/2021 and most recently on 2/29/2024 with the following diagnoses which included: contracture unspecified joint, hemiplegia and hemiparesis (paralysis and partial weakness) following cerebral infarction (stroke) affecting left non dominate side, unspecified dementia, unspecified mood (affective) disorder, muscle wasting and atrophy. Record review of Resident #1'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 · E2026-03-06 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure that assessments accurately reflected residents' status for 2 of 22 residents (Resident #2 and Resident #12) reviewed for accuracy of assessments. - The facility failed to ensure Section E of Resident #12's admission MDS completed on 02/27/26 accurately reflected her behaviors and rejection of care. - The facility failed to ensure Section I of Resident #2's Quarterly MDS completed on 01/13/26, Quarterly MDS completed on 10/13/2025, Annual MDS completed on 08/20/2025 accurately reflected her active diagnoses. These failures could place residents at risk of not having accurate assessments, which could compromise their plan of care. Findings included:Resident #2 Record review of Resident #2's Face sheet dated 03/06/2026 revealed a 74- year- old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included: vascular dementia(a brain condition caused by reduced blood flow, often from brain attack or damaged blood vessels,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-03-06 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care, including tracheostomy care and tracheal suctioning, was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preference for 3 of residents (Resident #7, Resident #111, and Resident #121) reviewed for respiratory and tracheostomy care. - ADON C failed to assess Resident #7's respiratory status when he was observed with his oxygen mask off his tracheostomy tube.- RN B failed to assess Resident #7's respiratory status before and after performing tracheostomy ( a surgically created opening into the windpipe allowing breathing, bypassing upper airway obstructions) care on 03/04/26.- The facility failed to ensure Resident #7 received O2 as ordered when he was administered 4L instead of 6L as…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-03-06 · 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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident for 5 of 5 medical supplies, (including procedures that assured the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals,) reviewed for medication storage and labeling.The facility failed to ensure the medication room was free from expired medical supplies on [DATE].This failure could place residents at risk of using items that were less effective or risky due to a change in their chemical composition (change of a substance into something else, often making it weaker, useless, or harmful), and could cause infections due to compromised sterile equipment.Findings included: During an observation of 300 hall's medication cart and interview on [DATE] at 10:28 a.m., revealed staff stored expired eSwab tubes (a system of a liquid-based, FDA-cleared device for collecting and transporting wound cultures) count 2, both expired on [DATE]. LVN J…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-03-06 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food procurement. -The facility failed to ensure food items were labeled and dated. This failure could place residents at risk of foodborne illness and disease.Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food procurement. - The facility failed to ensure food items were labeled and dated. This failure could place residents at risk of foodborne illness and disease. Findings include: Observation of the facility's kitchen on 3/4/2026 at 8:18 a.m. revealed the following: An open container of Homestyle Mayonnaise, 1 gallon, in the refrigerator were not dated. In an interview on 3/6/2026 at 10:18 a.m. with the Kitchen Manager, she stated everything in the refrigerator was labeled except the mayonnaise. 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 · D2026-03-06 · tag F0694 — isolatedProvide for the safe, appropriate administration of IV fluids for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to administer parenteral fluids consistent with professional standards of practice and in accordance with physician orders, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences for 1of 3 (Resident #70) residents reviewed for parenteral fluids. - The facility failed to ensure the dressing of Resident #70's IV line was changed weekly as ordered. This failure could place residents at risk for unwanted infections and further decrease in quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #70's Face Sheet dated 03/05/26 revealed, a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included: skin infection (cellulitis) of the left upper limb, type 2 diabetes, anxiety and obesity (excessive fat accumulation). Record review of Resident #70's admission MDS dated [DATE] revealed, intact cognition as indicated by a BIMS…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-06 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was not 5% or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 6.0%, based on two errors out of 29 opportunities, which involved 2 of 4 residents (Residents #3 and #64) and 2 of 2 (RN B and MA C) staff observed during medication administration reviewed for medication errors. -The facility's staff failed to administer scheduled medications to Residents #3 and #64.-This failure could place residents at risk of receiving less than optimal results from their medication regimen.Findings included:. Record review of Resident #64's Physician Orders, dated 03/05/2026, revealed active orders of the following medications:- Amlodipine oral (by mouth) tablet 10 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for High blood pressure.- Aspirin low dose oral tablet 81 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day related to paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm).- Buspirone tablet 5 mg. Give 2 tablet by mouth three times a day for anxiety (the body's response to stress,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-06 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident received and the facility provided food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for 1 of 22 Residents (Resident #65) reviewed for food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs. The facility failed to ensure Resident #65's dietary orders and preference of a mechanical soft diet when were followed when the resident was served dry lightly toasted toast for breakfast and boiled potatoes with the skin for lunch on 03/05/2026. This failure could place residents at risk of difficulty chewing, choking and weight loss. Findings include: Record review of Resident #65's face sheet, dated 03/05/26, revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #65 had diagnoses which included: paralysis and weakness on the right dominant side following a stoke ( brain damage caused by a blockage in a blood vessel do to lack 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 · D2026-03-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 5 residents (Residents #7 and Resident #57) reviewed for infection control practices.1. ADON C failed to follow infection control practices when she cleaned Resident #7's trach with a towel that sat on the resident's chest on 03/04/26.2. RN B failed to follow infection control practices and did not use aseptic (sterile) technique when she suctioned Resident #7's Trach on 03/04/26 and 03/05/26.3. The facility failed to ensure a used single use push button lancet (a device with a hiding needle used to prick the skin for blood samples) was not left on Resident 57's nightstand on 03/04/2026. These failures could place residents at risk of bloodborne pathogens,…
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 · D2026-02-06 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to be adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relays the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area to each resident's bedside;abd /toilet and bathing facilities for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for call lights.The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's call light was within reach on 02/06/2026, while he was lying bed.This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving immediate assistance when needed. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's Face Sheet revealed, a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included muscle wasting, abnormality of gait and mobility, difficulty in walking, and lack of coordination.Record review of Resident #1's most recent Quarterly MDS (a standardized, comprehensive assessment of an adult's functional, medical, psychosocial, and cognitive status, used in nursing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-16 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who needed respiratory care was provided with such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 20 residents (Resident #85) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to set the flow rate at 2 liters of oxygen per the order for Resident #85. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of incorrect or inadequate respiratory support and could result in a decline in health. Findings include: Record review of Resident #85's, undated, face sheet reflected an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #85 had diagnoses which included hypertensive heart disease with heart failure (left changes in the heart as a result of chronic elevated blood pressure), paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (intermittent rapid, erratic heart rate that stops on its own), Chronic systolic…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-16 · 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, which included procedures that assured the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals, to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 23 residents (Residents #42) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure Midodrine (a low blood pressure medication) given to elevate hypotension (low blood pressure) was administered to Resident #42 as ordered by the physician. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving desired therapeutic outcomes, increased side effects, or a decline in health. Findings include: Record review of Resident #42's admission face sheet dated 11/14/2023, reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #42 had diagnoses which included: rheumatoid lung disease with rheumatoid arthritis on multiple sites (a chronic inflammatory disorder affecting many…
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.
- No harm found · C2026-03-06 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the daily staffing was posted and readily accessible for review for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for required postings. - The facility failed to post the Daily Staffing Hours in a location visible to all by posting it on the wall on the left side of the building between the 100 and 200 Hall from 03/04/26 to 03/06/26.- The facility failed to include the resident census and the total number and actual hours worked by direct care per shift on the Nursing Staffing information from 03/04/26 to 03/06/26. These failures could affect residents, facility visitors, vendors, and emergency personnel by placing them at risk of not having access to information regarding daily nursing staffing in a timely manner. Findings Include: An observation on 03/04/26 at 8:24 AM revealed, the Daily Staffing Hours was posted on the left side of the hall in a clear placard by the DON's office between the 100 and 200 halls. The date reflected 03/03/26, and included 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.
“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
$8,018 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,018 — penalty dated 2024-06-14
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 ML HEALTHCARE — 6 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 5 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.3★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FRIO HOSPITAL DISTRICT | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 01/01/2024 |
| ML REAL ESTATE-EASTON COMMONS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| LANGSDALE, TROY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| MILLER, LAURA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| RUFF, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| ML - EASTON COMMONS LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| ALI, NIDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| PYLE, CATHERINE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 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.
This home reported $1.7M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 17% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 676482. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-06, 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.