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

Timberidge Nursing And Rehabilitation Center

315 W Gibson, Jasper, TX 75951 · For profit - Corporation · 114 certified beds · (409) 384-5768 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (409) 384-5768 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 10 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — 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
Worth asking about
  • its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

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

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
1305 S Main St · (409) 489-4769 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
800 W Gibson St · (409) 384-7108 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
1125 S Wheeler St · (409) 383-0030 · Call to confirm hours
Park
1342 S Wheeler St · (409) 384-6894 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
351 W Gibson St · (409) 384-2365

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 2 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 2 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 3 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased30.9%15.8%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight7.0%3.0%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.6%0.3%0.9%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.7%0.8%2.0%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms4.5%2.4%6.5%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury2.5%3.3%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened46.3%14.0%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication26.4%18.0%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%98.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.4%3.8%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control16.7%13.4%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table4.5%9.6%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication3.3%1.5%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%88.0%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission20.0%25.7%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit13.3%12.3%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.952.171.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.802.061.80worse

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

48.8% 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 59 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

48.8%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.0%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
65.2%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.39U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.17hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.17hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.05hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 65.2% 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 23 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.39 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 66% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 38% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF48.8%CMS range 36.8–62.351.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.0%CMS range 7.6–16.110.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge65.2%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge65.2%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge17.4%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.4%CMS range 4.0–12.37.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.281.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.31
RN hours/ resident / day
1.31
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.33
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.95
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.18
RN hoursweekends
46.3%
Total nursing turnover
40.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 114 beds and averages 46.2 residents a day — about 41% occupied, or roughly 68 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.95 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.31 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.33 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 3.36 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.18 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.36 to 0.18 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% 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

2
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-08-06)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2024-07-24)

Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

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

  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-08-06 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food under sanitary conditions in the facility's only kitchen observed for kitchen sanitation.The facility failed to ensure:- the dish machine was not sanitizing- the ice machine ice chute and air intake vent were not clean- in the reach in cooler chocolate milk pints were out of date - 2 packages of dry pasta were no re-closed after opening- freezer #1 had a package of frozen fried eggs open and not secured closed- the pan rack had 8 pans stacked wet, 1 with food debris present and 1 greasy full size baking sheet- the deep fryer had cornmeal-like debris floating on the surface of the oil, stuck to both fry baskets, and covering the drain tray.- the spice rack had brown sugar and powdered sugar packages opened and not re-sealed.- the 3 compartment sink was not sanitizing and the QA test strips were out of date.These failures could place residents who ate food from the kitchen at risk of foodborne illness. Findings included:During observations, interviews and record reviews…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-08-06 · tag F0640 — isolated
    Encode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an encoded, accurate, and complete MDS assessment was electronically transmitted to the CMS System within 14 days after completion for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #22) reviewed for encoding/transmitting assessments. The facility failed to transmit a death record assessment for Resident #22 within 14 days of completion. This failure could place residents at risk of not having records completed and submitted in a timely manner as required. Findings include:Record review of a face sheet dated [DATE] indicated Resident #22 was a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cirrhosis of the liver (chronic liver damage leading to scarring and liver failure), hepatitis (inflammation of the liver), and hepatomegaly (enlarged liver). Record review of progress notes dated [DATE] indicated Resident #22 expired on the evening of [DATE] while a resident in the facility. Record review of Resident #22's electronic…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-24 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    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 provide the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene for 1 of 12 residents reviewed for ADLs (Residents #1.) The facility did not apply moisturizer on the cracked and dry lips of Resident #1. This failure could place residents who required assistance from staff for ADLs at risk of not receiving care and services to meet their needs which could result in poor care, risk for skin breakdown, feelings of poor self-esteem, lack of dignity, and health. The findings were: Review of Resident #1's Electronic Face Sheet dated 07/24/24 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hypertension (high blood pressure), constipation (passing fewer than three stools a week or having a difficult time passing stool), and hypothyroidism (deficiency of thyroid hormones can disrupt such things as heart rate, body temperature, and all aspects of metabolism). Record review of Resident #1's Significant Change MDS dated…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-24 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 4 (Resident's #6 and #38) reviewed for infection control. 1. CNA B did not change her gloves when going from dirty to clean after performing incontinent care. CNA B did not sanitize or wash her hands after performing incontinent care when she applied Resident #6's clean brief. 2. LVN A did not change her gloves when going from dirty to clean when providing indwelling urinary catheter care. LVN A did not sanitize or wash her hands after performing Resident #38's indwelling urinary catheter care when she changed her gloves. These failures could place residents at risk of exposure to communicable diseases, cross-contamination, and infections. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #6's undated face…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-05-25 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure 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, interviews and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation in that: 1. Hairnets were not worn or were worn unproperly. 2. Food was not labeled or dated. 3. Expired food was not thrown away. These deficient practices could place residents who received meals from the main kitchen at risk for food borne illness. The findings were: During an observation on 05/22/23 at 8:40 a.m., it was observed that hairnets were not worn by [NAME] L while preparing lunch service. Hardboiled eggs were in a one-gallon sized zip lock bag that were not labeled or dated nor had an expiration date stored in the refrigerator. Whole buttermilk was past its expiration date of 05/04/23 stored in the refrigerator. Cabbage stored in a plastic bag inside the refrigerator was past its expiration date of 03/18/23. It was observed that [NAME] L and the Dietary Manager were not properly wearing their hairnets as they had their hair coming out the…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-05-25 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene for 2 of 15 residents reviewed for ADLs (Residents #27 and Resident #1) The facility did not shave Resident #27's facial hair. The facility did not trim Resident #1's long nails. This failure could place residents who required assistance from staff for ADLs at risk of not receiving care and services to meet their needs which could result in poor care, risk for skin breakdown, feelings of poor self-esteem, lack of dignity and health. The findings are: 1.Review of Resident #27's undated electronic face sheet revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of: Need for assistance with personal care Urinary tract infection, Alzheimer's disease with late onset, Other seasonal allergic rhinitis, Hyperlipidemia (too many lipids (fats) in your blood), Pectoris (chest pain or discomfort due to coronary heart disease) Essential (primary) hypertension, Gastro-esophageal…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-05-25 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide 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 that residents maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight or desirable body weight range and electrolyte balance, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that this is not possible or resident preferences indicate otherwise when the facility failed to implement significant interventions for three (Residents #16, #28, and #39) of nineteen residents reviewed for significant weight loss. There were residents with significant weight variances (both for weight loss and weight gains) that were not identified until after surveyor intervention. This system failure allowed significant weight loss and weight gains to go undetected and untreated. 1. Resident #16 had an unexplained fifteen-pound weight loss (8.57%) in 11 days from 05/12/2023 to 05/23/2023 that was not identified until after surveyor entrance on 05/22/2023. 2. Resident #28 had an unexplained twenty-four-pound weight gain…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-05-25 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that respiratory care was provided consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 15 residents reviewed for respiratory care. (Resident #205). The facility failed to ensure Resident #205 received continuous oxygen per physician's orders. These failures could place residents at an increased risk of respiratory complications. Findings included: Record review of Resident #205's face sheet dated 5/25/23 revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female, who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #205 had diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung disease that damages lung tissue and causes difficulty or discomfort in breathing), end stage renal disease (permanent cease of function of the kidneys), dependence on oxygen, and heart failure. Record review of Resident #205's MDS revealed it had not been completed. Record review of Resident #205's Care Plan dated 5/24/23 revealed Resident #205 was receiving oxygen…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-05-25 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 15 residents (Residents #26 and Resident #35) reviewed for infection control practices. CNA O failed to remove her dirty gloves and perform hand hygiene (general term referring to any action of hand cleansing) before touching multiple clean items in the Resident's environment during incontinent care for Resident #26. CNA P failed to remove her dirty gloves and perform hand hygiene before touching clean items in the Resident's environment during incontinent care for Resident #35. These failures could place residents at risk for cross contamination and infections. Findings included: 1.Record review of the face sheet dated 5/23/23 for Resident #26 indicated she was [AGE] years old and admitted to the facility on [DATE] with…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-05-25 · tag F0926 — failed to keep the home smoke-free / fire-safe — isolated
    Have policies on smoking.
    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 follow established policy regarding smoking areas, and smoking safety for 1 of 1 smoking area reviewed. The facility failed to keep trash out of the red metal trash cans designated for cigarette butts in the smoking area and failed to implement their smoking safety policy. This failure could place residents who smoke at risk of physical harm and lead to an unsafe smoking environment. The Findings Included: Record review of List of smokers undated revealed there were 2 residents listed as smokers. During an observation on 05/23/23 at 09:45 AM revealed in the smoking area 2 red metal trashcans with automatic closing lids. Observed in the trashcan on the right side of the smoking area red trashcan #1 was filled to the top with multiple empty cigarette packs, napkins, straws, chip bags and soda cans. Observed on the left of the smoking area in red trashcan #2 was 3/4 of the way full of cigarette butts with a Styrofoam cup on top. Observed all the smoking area with no fire extinguisher available. On 05/23/23 at…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
BROUSSARD, KENDALLIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2019
CISNEROS, ALFREDIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 02/18/2008
COBB, TRAVISIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 10/05/2022
COOPER, STEPHENIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 11/11/2022
KERZEE, RICHARDIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/24/2007
SANDERS, JACKIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2019
TIMBERIDGE NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/23/2025
CALVIN H JONES ESTATEOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 08/11/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 8 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.

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

Follow the money — this home’s finances

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

$4.9M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+4.4%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$216K
Related-party expense5% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 5%Medicare 16%Other / private 79%

This home reported $216K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$260per resident / day
operating cost
$7,898per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$272per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in TX

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.

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

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 675709. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-06, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next