St Dominic Village Rehabilitation And Nursing Cent
2409 E Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77021 · Non profit - Other · 158 certified beds · (713) 741-8701 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602) — most recent Apr 2026
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- the CMS record shows $42,031 in federal fines (most recent 2025-05-05)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- it did not file the payroll staffing data CMS requires — its 1 of 5 staffing rating is the rating CMS assigns for not reporting, not a measure of how many nurses are on the floor
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 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 fell from 5 to 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 6.6% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.4% | 3.0% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.1% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.5% | 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 | 1.6% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.5% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 7.6% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 81.8% | 98.0% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.6% | 3.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 7.9% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.0% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.4% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 57.4% | 88.0% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.3% | 25.7% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.5% | 12.3% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.70 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.16 | 2.06 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
52.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 116 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 57.4% 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 54 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.
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 | 52.7%CMS range 43.1–59.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.5%CMS range 8.3–15.5 | 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 | 57.4% | 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 | 59.3% | 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 | 37.0% | 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 | 1.2% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 10.0%CMS range 6.0–16.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.15 | 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
No payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours are on file for this home — and the record suggests that is because it did not report them. Inspectors cited this home for failing to submit its staffing data to CMS (F0851) — see the citation below; CMS rates its staffing 1 of 5, which is the rating CMS assigns when a home does not report. Every Medicare-certified nursing home is required to submit its actual payroll data quarterly, and that submission is what makes staffing numbers auditable rather than a claim. A home that does not file is not the same as a home with no data yet: ask this home directly what its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage are, why its payroll data is not filed, and weigh the independent health-inspection score heavily in the meantime.
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 · G2025-05-05 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure residents were free from sexual abuse and physical abuse for three of ten residents (Resident #61, #52 and #48) reviewed for abuse.-The facility failed to have a policy and procedure in place to address the determination of capacity to consent to sexual activity for residents who lacked the cognitive ability to consent. On 2/25/25 RA A witnessed inappropriate sexual behavior between two residents who had dementia. Resident #61 had his mouth on Resident #52's breast.-The facility failed to ensure Resident #48 was free of abuse when CNA A pushed Resident #48's face into his bed railings while providing incontinence care. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of non-consensual sexual relations, physical pain, psychosocial distress and feeling uncomfortable. Findings include: Record review of the provider investigation report submitted to the state by the Administrator dated 3/04/2025 revealed in part: .Description 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 · F2026-06-25 · tag F0851 — widespreadElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to electronically submit to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services a complete and accurate direct care staffing information, including information for agency and contract staff, based on 1 of 4 quarters for payroll and other verifiable and auditable data in a uniform format according to specification established by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The facility failed to submit to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services the Payroll Base Journal data for the second quarter of 2026. The failure could put Residents at risk for inadequate staffing and not having their needs meets. Findings include: Record review of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-Payroll Base Journal Staffing Data Report CASPER Report 1705D-Fiscial Year Quarter 2 -2026 (January 1-March 31) reveals the facility failed to submit data for the second quarter of 2026. In an interview on 6/25/2026 at 9:16 a.m. with the Administrator, he stated he has been at the facility since 2018. He stated the Payroll Base Journal for the second quarter…
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 · E2026-06-25 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rate was not five percent or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 13% based on 4 errors out of 30 opportunities, which involved 3 of 4 residents (Resident #1, Resident #51, and Resident #75) and 1 of 1 staff (MA A) observed during medication administration reviewed for medication errors. The facility failed to ensure:1. Resident #1's Aspercreme lidocaine patch 4% was applied to the correct area of the body as ordered2. Resident #1 received the enteric coated extended release aspirin instead of chewable aspirin3. Resident #51 did not receive Vitamin D 25 mcg without a physician's order4. Resident #75 received the correct dosage of Cetirizine HCl Theses failures could place residents at risk of not receiving therapeutic dosages and/or effects of medications. Findings included:Resident #1Observation and interview on 6/24/26 at 8:47 a.m. revealed MA A administered chewable aspirin 81 mg tablet to Resident #1 orally and applied lidocaine patch 4% to 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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-25 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible and that each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #9) reviewed for adequate supervision.The facility failed to ensure Resident #9 had quarterly fall risk assessments completed. The failure could place residents at risk of possible injury and not having appropriate interventions in place. Findings included:Record review of Resident #9's face sheet dated 6/25/26, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy (a condition in which the brain's function is impaired due to underlying metabolic or systemic disturbances rather than structural brain damage), muscle wasting and atrophy (decrease in size), other lack of coordination, generalized muscle weakness, weakness, and unspecified abnormalities of gait (a person's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-25 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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 resident's medical records included documentation that indicated the resident, or their responsible party, received education of the benefits, and potential side effects, of the influenza or pneumococcal immunization, receipt of the influenza or pneumococcal immunization, or residents did not receive the influenza or pneumococcal immunization due to medical contraindication, or refusal, for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations. (Resident #3 and Resident #65)The facility failed to document, in Resident #3's and Resident #65's medical records, having had received education, whether by self or with responsible party, of the benefits and potential side effects of the influenza immunization and receipt of the of the pneumococcal immunization or having had not received the pneumococcal immunization due to medical contraindication or refusal.This failure could place residents at risk of contracting a viral illness, influenza and pneumococcal, or…
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 · D2026-06-25 · tag F0887 — isolatedEducate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
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 implement their policy to ensure the residents, or their responsible party, received education of the benefits and risks, or potential side effects of Covid-19 immunizations, receipt of Covid-19 immunizations, or the residents did not receive the Covid-19 immunizations, due to medical contraindication, or refusal, for 2 of 5 residents who were reviewed for immunizations. (Resident #3 and Resident #65) The facility failed to document, in Resident #3's and Resident #65's medical records, having had received education, whether by self or with their responsible party, of the benefits and risk, and potential side effects, of the Covid-19 immunization, receipt of the of the Covid-19 immunization, or having had not received the Covid-19 immunization due to medical contraindication or refusal.This failure could place residents at risk of not being informed of complications and potential adverse health outcomes.Findings included:Resident #3 Record review 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 · D2026-04-30 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from misappropriation (Misappropriation of resident property means the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful, temporary, or permanent use of a resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent.) for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for misappropriation. The facility failed to protect Resident #1 from being exploited when LVN A deliberately used $800 from the resident's money without the resident's consent. This failure may cause residents to be left without sufficient funds to pay for their own care necessities, psychological distress, paranoia, and feelings of guilt and shame that could prevent them from reporting abuse, neglect, or exploitation. Findings include: Record Review of Resident #1's Face Sheet, dated 04/30/2026 reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included diabetic retinopathy with macular…
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 before2025-12-17 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 4 out of 5 residents (Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, and Resident #5), reviewed for care plans. - The facility failed to document Resident #2's fall from 8/29/25, and interventions put in place, which included a low bed, and a clutter free area.- The facility failed to document Resident #3's falls from 11/17/25 and 11/27/25, and interventions put in place, which included a low bed.- The facility failed to document Resident #4's falls from 10/22/25, 11/18/25, 11/27/25, and 12/3/25, and interventions put in place which included increased rounding, ordering labs, work up for tachycardia, a low bed, and a clutter free area.- The facility…
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 before2025-05-05 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop 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 develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet a residents' mental, nursing and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 3 of 7 Residents (Resident #61, Resident #52 and Resident #17) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #61's care plan with interventions for the inappropriate sexual interaction on 2/25/2025 was documented in a timely manner. The facility failed to ensure Resident #52's care plan with interventions for the inappropriate sexual interaction on 2/25/2025 was documented in a timely manner. The facility failed to ensure Resident #17's care plan accurately reflected the resident's behaviors which included yelling without stimulus, fighting the air . These deficient practices could place residents at risk of nonconsensual sexual…
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 before2025-05-05 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure in accordance with State and Federal laws, all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments under proper temperature controls and permitted only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for 1 of 1 medication carts (Unit 2-B Nursing Cart) reviewed for medication storage . The facility failed to ensure Unit 2-B Nursing cart revealed was not unlocked and unattended with medication on top of the cart. This failure could place residents at risk of adverse reactions to medications and misappropriation of medications. Findings include: An observation on 04/01/25 at 09:03 AM of the unlocked and unattended Unit 2-B Nursing cart revealed, a vial which contained Resident #16's Timolol eye drops, a medication used to treat glaucoma, on the top of the cart. The cart was in front of a patient room with the drawers easily accessible and facing the hall . In an observation and interview on 04/01/25 at 09:10 AM, inventory of the Unit 2-B Nursing Cart with LVN B revealed all drawers in the cart were…
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 · D2024-02-08 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
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 coordinate assessments with the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) program to the maximum extent practicable for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #17) reviewed for PASARR. The facility failed to update the PASARR Level 1 forms for Resident #17 to indicate mental health illness. This failure could place residents requiring PASARR services at risk of not having their special needs assessed and met by the facility. Findings included: Record review of Resident #17's admission Record, dated 12/28/2023, revealed an 84 -year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident # 17 face sheet dated 02/08/2024 revealed that Resident # 17 had an active diagnosis of (PTSD) Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (a mental health condition that develops following a traumatic event characterized by intrusive thoughts about the incident, recurrent distress/anxiety, flashback and avoidance of similar situations.) with an onset documented as of 12/28/2023.…
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 · D2024-02-08 · 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight for 1 of 5 residents (Residents #31) reviewed for nutrition. - The facility failed to ensure the implementation of the Registered Dietitian's recommendations that included Fortified meals for Resident #31. This failure could place residents at risk for weight loss and decline in health status. Findings include: Record review of Resident #31's Face Sheet dated 02/06/24 revealed, an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of: Alzheimer's Disease, and hypertension. Record review of Resident #31's MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed, severely impaired cognition as indicated by a BIMS score of 01 out of 15, no malnutrition, no specified therapeutic diet, and set-up and clean up assistance for eating. Record review of Resident #31's undated Care Plan revealed, no weight related care areas. Record review 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 · D2024-02-08 · 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
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 for 1 of 4 medication Carts (Station 1 PRN Nursing Cart) reviewed for pharmaceutical services. - The facility failed to ensure the Station 1 PRN nursing cart did not contain an expired bottle of Vitamin C 250 mg. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the desired therapeutic effect of their medications and uncontrolled health conditions. Findings Included: In an observation on 02/08/24 at 07:10 AM, inventory of the Station 1 PRN Nursing Cart with LVN A revealed: - An expired, open and in use stock bottle of Vitamin C 250 mg with a manufacturer's expiration date of 01/2024. LVN A said nursing staff are expected to check their medication carts daily for expired medications as they use the medications and then weekly. She said when supplements expire they might be less effective so they should be discarded because use…
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 before2024-02-08 · 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 upon observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility must be labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and under proper temperature controls for 1 out of 8 Residents (Resident #43) and 1 of 4 medication carts ( Station 3 Medication Cart) reviewed for drug labeling and storage. - The facility failed to ensure the Station 3 Medication Cart did not contain an in-use insulin pen for Resident #43 with no open date. This failure could place residents at risk of adverse medication reactions and drug diversions. Findings included: Record review of Resident #43's Face Sheet dated 02/06/24 revealed, a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of anxiety disorder, high cholesterol and type 2 diabetes. Record review of Resident #43's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed, intact cognition as indicated by a BIMS of 14 out of 15, partial/moderate assistance with most ADLs and always…
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
$42,031 in federal fines across 5 penalties.
- $12,470 — penalty dated 2025-05-05
- $4,938 — penalty dated 2024-01-08
- $4,587 — penalty dated 2024-01-02
- $11,645 — penalty dated 2023-12-11
- $8,391 — penalty dated 2023-11-06
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ST. DOMINIC VILLAGE | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/1999 |
| DELLORO, ITALO | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 10/01/2021 |
| LEMMING, SANDRA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 07/01/2022 |
| BADUM, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/01/2023 |
| BROOKS, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/01/2021 |
| GIBLER, LINDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/01/2022 |
| HOTZE, BRUCE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/01/2022 |
| IDSTEIN, HUGH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2021 |
| LAYNE, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/01/2022 |
| MAKULSKI, MARTIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| MAZZARA, BEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/01/2024 |
| MICHALEC, ROSE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/01/2024 |
| NARCISSE, VICTOR | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2022 |
| PARSLEY, KATHERINE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/01/2024 |
| PELZ, LOU | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2022 |
| SCHRIBER, LYNN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| SEPE, FAITH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/01/2018 |
| TSCHIRCH, POLDI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2021 |
| WILSON, CHARLES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/14/2025 |
| SAM, BRYANT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/25/2025 |
| TODOM KUATE, VINCENT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/09/2011 |
| MARSH, JELEEKA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/11/2024 |
| OOMMEN, BIJU | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| REYSER, JULIA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 31 rows in the source record cover these 24 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 676170. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-25, 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.