Avir at Itasca
409 S Files St, Itasca, TX 76055 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 51 certified beds · (254) 687-2383 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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 4 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 | 20.9% | 15.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.8% | 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 | 0.6% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.6% | 2.4% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger 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 | 2.8% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.0% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.7% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.6% | 3.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.8% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 23.8% | 9.6% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.57 | 2.17 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.02 | 2.06 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.37 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 63% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 51 beds and averages 45.7 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 5 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 2.97 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.52 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.92 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 2.66 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.09 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.59 to 0.34 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-01-08 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and support for daily living safely for 1 of 1 facility observed.A)The facility failed to ensure the walls in the secure unit were free of gouges, scuffs, holes, peeling paint, and shredded sheetrock.The facility failed to ensure the handrails in the secure unit were free from peeling paint.The facility failed to ensure the blinds in the secure unit dining room were not broken.The facility failed to ensure the community shower room toilet was clean from feces and urine.The facility failed to ensure the floor tile was not broken and missing in the hallway in front of the kitchen entrance.B)The facility failed to empty Resident #20's 3 bedside urinals observed full on 01/06/26 and 01/07/26 at different times of the day resulting in a urine odor, gnats/flies, and unsanitary environment.This failure could place residents at risk of feeling…
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 before2026-01-08 · 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 observations, interviews, 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 kitchen sanitation. The facility failed to ensure stored food in 1 of 2 reach in refrigerators were labeled and dated. The facility failed to ensure expired items were removed from dry storage and discarded. The facility failed to ensure Dietary Aide A properly sanitized a food thermometer when taking food temperatures for lunch services on 01/07/26. These failures could place residents who received prepared meals from the kitchen at risk for foodborne illness and cross-contamination.The findings included: During an initial tour on 01/06/26 beginning at 10:00 AM of the one and only kitchen revealed: 1 of the 2 reach-in refrigerators in the dry storage room of the kitchen contained a large zip sealed bag holding smaller prepackaged bags of sliced sandwich meat. Neither the large zip seal bag or the smaller bags inside contained the open date or the use by date.The dry…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-08 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' right to be treated with respect and dignity during personal care for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #39) reviewed for respect and dignity in that:The facility failed to ensure RN A provided resident care with the door shut during an observation on 1/7/2026 at 9:13 am of wound care.The failure could place residents at risk for a lack of privacy. Findings included:Review of Resident #39's undated face sheet reflected Resident #39 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of paraplegia (paralysis affecting the lower half of the body), non-pressure ulcer of the right foot, non-pressure ulcer of the left foot, and unspecified open wound to the left ankle.Record review of Resident #39's quarterly MDS assessment, datd 10/10/2025, reflected Resident #39 had a BIMS score of 7 indicating she was cognitively impaired. Resident #39 required partial to moderate assistance with bathing and was…
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 · D2026-01-08 · 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 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 1 (Resident #39) of 6 residents reviewed for infection control practices.The facility failed to ensure RN A used a clean technique on Resident #39's right and left foot ulcers during an observation of wound care on 1/7/2026 at 9:13 am.The failure could place residents at risk for healthcare associated cross contamination leading to worsening pressure ulcers, discomfort, pain, and potential infections.Findings included:Review of Resident #39's undated face sheet reflected Resident #39 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of paraplegia (paralysis affecting the lower half of the body), non-pressure ulcer of the right foot, non-pressure ulcer of the left foot, and unspecified…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-08 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — isolatedMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
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 an effective pest control program was implemented so the facility was free of pests and rodents for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for pest control. The facility failed to keep an effective pest control program to ensure areas including residents' rooms and kitchen (dry storage) were free of flies and gnats. This failure could place residents at risk for reduced quality of life and poor sanitary environment.An observation on 01/06/26 at 10:00 AM, in the kitchen revealed a swarm of gnats surrounding a box of spoiled bananas and 50-pound bag of spoiled onions in the dry storage room. An observation on 01/06/26 at 11:41 AM, in Resident #20's room observed gnats in the room and near 3 full bedside urinals. Urine odor noted in the room. An observation on 01/07/26 at 11:14 AM, in Resident #20's room observed gnats in the room appeared around Resident #20 and appeared to be attracted to 3 full bedside urinals that appeared to have not been emptied. A fly was also noted at this time flying around the room. Urine…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-26 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 7 of 12 residents reviewed for environment. 1. The facility failed to ensure the secure unit was a comfortable temperature on 11/26/24, and Residents #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 felt uncomfortably cold. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #7's room was free of holes, paint scuffs, and had a well-fitting screen for the window. These failures placed residents at risk of discomfort and diminished quality of life. Findings included: Review of the undated face sheet for Resident #1 reflected an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included hypertension, anemia, underweight, osteoarthritis of hip, pain in right lower leg, and dementia. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment for Resident #1 dated 08/23/24 reflected a BIMS score of 03, indicating severe cognitive impairment. It also reflected she required supervision/touching…
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 before2024-10-10 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain the resident's privacy during wound treatments for 2 of 2 resident (Residents #8 and #13) reviewed for privacy. The facility failed to ensure Dr-B and the ADON protected the resident's privacy by closing the curtain and/or the resident's door when performing wound care on Resident #8 and Resident #13. This failure could place residents at risk for embarrassment, shame, and loss of dignity. Findings include: Record review of Resident #8's undated face sheet, revealed she was an [AGE] year-old female admitted [DATE] with diagnoses of Pressure ulcer Stage 3 (skin damage extending into muscle) depression, Hyponatremia (low sodium), Dementia, and Fracture of the lower leg. Record review of Resident #8's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 9, which indicated the resident's cognitive ability was moderately impaired. Record review of Resident #8's Care Plan dated 8/6/24 reflected a Focus area was initiated for…
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 · D2024-10-10 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure 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 interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 4 residents (Residents #36) reviewed for resident assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident #36's Quarterly MDS reflected that Resident #36 primary diagnosis of orthostatic hypotension. This deficient practice could place residents at-risk for inadequate care due to inaccurate assessments. Findings include: A record review of Resident #36's face sheet dated 10/09/24 reflected an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #36's diagnoses included orthostatic hypotension (a type of low blood pressure that occurs when you stand up after sitting or lying down), age related nuclear cataract bilateral (a common cause of blindness in older adults and the elderly), and ocular pain left eye (sharp and throbbing pain in the eye), muscle weakness (loss of muscle strength of the inability to move a muscle normally), and vascular dementia (occurs when…
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 · D2024-10-10 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that included measurable objectives and timeframe's to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 4 residents (Residents #36) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. Resident #36's comprehensive care plan did not reflect Resident #36's primary diagnosis of orthostatic hypotension. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for not receiving proper care and services due to inaccurate care plans. Findings include: A record review of Resident #36's face sheet dated 10/09/24 reflected an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #36's diagnoses included orthostatic hypotension (a type of low blood pressure that occurs when you stand up after sitting or lying down), age related nuclear cataract bilateral (a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-10 · tag F0813 — isolatedHave a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain and ensure safe and sanitary storage of residents' food items for 1 of 12 residents' (Resident #34) refrigerators reviewed. Resident #34's personal in-room refrigerator was not monitored for safe temperatures. This deficient practice could place residents who had personal in-room refrigerators at risk of food borne illnesses. The findings were: A record review of Resident #34's face sheet dated 10/10/24 reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #34's diagnoses included essential hypertension (a type of blood pressure that develops gradually over time and has to clear cause), major depression disorder (a mental health condition that involves a persistent feeling of sadness, loss of interest, or low mood that last for a long time), Gastro-esophageal reflux disease with esophagitis without bleeding (occurs when stomach contents leak back into the esophagus, causing inflammation and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-18 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the Resident representative when the Resident experienced a significant change in condition for 1 (Resident #1) of 7 Residents reviewed for Resident rights. The facility failed to notify Resident #1's Family Member or Hospice Agency of his x-ray results that showed he had a left hip fracture on 05/15/24 due to Resident #1 falling on 05/14/24. The facility failed to notify Resident #1's Family Member or Hospice Agency that he was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] due to the left hip fracture which was revealed from an x-ray taken on 05/15/24 due to Resident #1 falling on 05/14/24. This failure could result in the Resident representative not being aware of conditions that may require them to make medical decisions. Findings included: Record review of Resident #'1s face sheet dated 07/18/24 reflected an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1's diagnoses included: dementia (a syndrome associated with 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.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-08-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store and prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the facility's only kitchen reviewed for food and kitchen safety. The facility failed to label and date food products io the refrigerator and thaw foods appropriately. There failures could place residents at risk for food-born illness. Findings included: Observations on 8-22-2023 at 8:30 AM of the facility's refrigerator revealed parmesan cheese and sliced American cheese loosely wrapped, exposed to the air, without labels to signify the date in which the product was opened and when it was supposed to expire. Observations on 8-22-2023 at 8:30 AM of the facility's freezer revealed two large containers of ice cream that were not labeled or dated. The outside of the ice cream tubs were covered in a 1/2 inch layer of frost. Interview on 8-22-2023 at 8:35 AM with the KM revealed she knew that food was supposed to be labeled and dated but was unsure how long the facility policy allowed food to be stored in the refrigerator.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-08-24 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — patternMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
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 maintain an effective ongoing pest control program to ensure the facility was free of pests and rodents for 4 of 8 resident rooms (rooms 1, 3, 5, and 7) reviewed for issues with pest control. The facility failed to follow their pest control company's recommendations to prevent pests' and rodents' entry into the building. This failure could place residents at risk for exposure to diseases carried by rodents. Findings included: Interview on 8-22-2023 at 10:03 AM with the RN on the SU revealed that the SU had recent rodent activity on the SU about 1 month ago. She explained that there was a rodent problem, which stemmed from the closet in one of the resident's rooms. She stated that the previous resident, who had since expired, kept food in their closet. The RN stated that the room number was 3A. Record review on 8-22-2023 of the facility's pest control company, August 2023 inspection, dated 8-21-2023, revealed two pages of their recommendations for the facility to prevent pests from entering the building. On…
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 · B2023-08-24 · tag F0912 — patternProvide rooms that are at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and 100 square feet for single resident rooms.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple resident bedrooms for 8 of 82 (Rooms #'s 16, 17,18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23) resident rooms reviewed for square footage. Rooms 16, 17,18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 which were double occupancy were not 80 square feet per resident. This practice could result in overcrowding in resident rooms. Findings include: During an interview on 08/22/2023 at 10:35 AM with the ADM, she stated she requested a room waiver for semiprivate rooms 16, 17,18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 that were less than 80 sq. ft. per resident. She stated there had been no changes in the rooms. During an observational tour of the resident rooms on 08/22/2023 at 11:11 AM revealed 8 semi-private resident rooms did not provide 80 square feet per resident. The rooms with less than 80 square feet were rooms #16,17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23. Review of the HHSC/DADS Form 3740 Bed Classification dated 08/22/2023 revealed rooms 16, 17,18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 were licensed for two residents.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to AVIR HEALTH GROUP — 116 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 1.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
The other 115 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.3★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 115; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 409 S FILES STREET HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/21/2025 |
| EASTLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 03/01/2017 |
| 409 S FILES STREET PROPERTY OWNER, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2025 |
| WELLTOWER INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2025 |
| WELLTOWER NNN GROUP, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2025 |
| WELLTOWER OP, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2025 |
| WRIGHT, LABAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/10/2021 |
| 409 S FILES STREET OPCO, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2025 |
| EARHART, JAMES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2025 |
| FREUND, NOCHUM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/01/2025 |
| TRAVITSKY, AARON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/01/2025 |
| DAGAN, AMITAI | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/31/2025 |
| GOLDBERGER, ABRAHAM | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/31/2025 |
| RODRIGUEZ, KAREN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 14 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
7 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.
About 81% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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 675712. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-08, 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.