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

Heritage Park of Katy Nursing and Rehabilitation

6001 George Bush Dr, Katy, TX 77493 · For profit - Individual · 118 certified beds · (281) 395-1124 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0609) — cited Sep 20232 immediate-jeopardy citations$25,508 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • the CMS record shows $25,508 in federal fines (most recent 2023-09-30)
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)

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

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

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

Location & what’s nearby

Urgent care / clinic
5504 1st St · (281) 391-0190 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
25675 NELSON WAY
Grocery
5650 Roberts St · (281) 395-8457 · Call to confirm hours
Park
6202 George Bush Dr · (281) 391-4840 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 3 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 3 of 5

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

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

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

Overall rating3★
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 increased12.4%15.8%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight8.3%3.0%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.3%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection4.4%0.8%2.0%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.2%2.4%6.5%better 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 injury2.6%3.3%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened3.4%14.0%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication13.0%18.0%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%98.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers6.3%3.8%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control6.0%13.4%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table9.3%9.6%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.5%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%88.0%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission35.5%25.7%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit17.5%12.3%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.432.171.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.312.061.80worse

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.

42.1% 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 28 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

42.1%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.7%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
65.1%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.38U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.21hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.11hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.06hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 65.1% 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 63 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 0.38 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 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF42.1%CMS range 27.2–58.551.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.7%CMS range 7.5–16.610.7%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 discharge65.1%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 discharge73.0%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 discharge47.6%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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final 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 stay2.1%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 worsened2.1%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 hospitalization8.2%CMS range 4.2–14.97.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.471.02Oct 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

0.47
RN hours/ resident / day
0.42
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.96
Aide hours/ resident / day
2.86
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.53
RN hoursweekends
43.5%
Total nursing turnover
33.3%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 118 beds and averages 112.2 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 2.86 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.47 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.96 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 2.94 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.45 to 0.53 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% 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

1
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-02-19)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2024-11-07)

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

Inspection deficiencies

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

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.

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

  • Immediate jeopardy · J2023-09-30 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to meet each resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for care plans (Resident #50) - The facility failed to care plan Resident #50's risk and history of falls and to put interventions in place to prevent further falls. The care plan was not updated or revised after each fall. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 09/24/23 at 2:00 PM. While the IJ was removed on 09/26/23 at 4:32 AM, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and severity of actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy. This failure could place residents at risk of not having individual needs met and decreased the quality of life to prevent further falls. Findings included: Review of Resident #50's face sheet revealed Resident #50 was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE],…

    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
  • Immediate jeopardy · J2023-09-30 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #50) reviewed for free of accidents, hazards, supervision, and devices., in that: 1. The facility failed to provide and utilize assistive devices for Resident #50 who had experienced multiple falls and unwitnessed fall on 7/25/23. Interventions including assistive devices were not put in place after a fall on 07/25/23 resulting in hospitalization and resident fell again on 07/26/23 resulting in a major head injury and another hospitalization 2. The facility failed to implement interventions after each fall incident for Resident #50 on 10/30/22, 12/2/22, 12/7/22, 1/5/2023, 3/18/23, 3/25/2023, 6/9/2023, 6/30/2023, 7/25/2023, 7/26/2023, 8/8/2023, 8/15/2023, 8/20/2023, 9/2/2023 and 9/3/2023. No revisions were made to the care plan after all of the falls listed until surveyor intervention on 09/08/23. 3. The facility failed to follow…

    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 · Ecited before2026-02-19 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — pattern
    Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure controlled drug counts were in order and reconciled for two of two medication carts observed during change-of-shift. -Two medication carts controlled medication counts were conducted without staff cross-checking the medications cards and controlled medication count sheets. -The staff did not state the name of the medication when calling out the resident name and quantity. -The facility policy did not require both staff to confirm the quantity being verbalized was the quantity written on the controlled medication count sheet. The failure placed residents at risk for controlled medications to not be available when needed, and for controlled drug diversion. Findings include:Observation on 02/19/2026 at 2:02 p.m., revealed MA A and MA B conducting the change-of-shift count of the controlled medications for the Hall 400 Medication Aide cart. MA A was standing in front of the controlled medication lockbox, which was open. The lockbox was located on the right/front side of the cart. MA B was standing in front…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-11-07 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    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 observations, 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 in that: -Five dented cans were stored with other cans used for resident meals in the dry storage room. -Food items were not sealed and not dated in the dry storage room. These failures could place residents who received meals from the kitchen at risk for food borne illness. Findings included: Observation on 11/5/24 at 9:00 am of the dry storage room revealed the following: -One 111 oz can of tomato paste with a large dent in the middle of the can -One 106 oz can of spaghetti sauce with a large dent at the top of the seam -One 112 oz can of banana pudding with a small dent at the bottom of the seam -One 112 oz can of vanilla pudding with a small dent at the bottom of the seam -One 108 oz can of sweet potatoes in syrup with a large dent in the middle of the can -One 25 lb bag of light brown sugar not sealed and not dated -One 5 lb bag of grits not sealed and not dated Interview 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-07 · tag F0645 — isolated
    PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level 1 Residents with a positive trigger for mental illness were provided with a PASRR Level II assessment for 1 (Resident #79) of 5 residents reviewed for mental illness. The facility did not correctly identify Resident #79 as having mental illness in her PASRR Level 1 Screening. This failure could place five residents with psychiatric diagnoses to trigger a positive PASRR Level I evaluation at risk for not receiving a PASRR Level II screening and receiving needed care and services to meet their needs. Findings included: Record review of Resident #79's face sheet dated 11/5/24, revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of rhabdomyolysis (a breakdown of muscle tissue that releases a damaging protein into the blood), unspecified psychosis, major depressive disorder (a mental health disorder characterized by persistently…

    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 · D2024-11-07 · tag F0655 — isolated
    Create and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
    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 records reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan within 48 hours for each resident that included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality of care for 1 (Resident #26) of 31 residents reviewed for base-line care plans. The facility failed to ensure (Resident #26) had a baseline care plan developed within 48-hours after admission with goals based on admission orders and interventions, PASRR recommendations, Physician's orders, therapy services, dietary orders, and social services. This failure could place newly admitted residents at risks of not receiving the proper care and continuity of services. Findings included: Record review of Resident #26's Face Sheet (undated) revealed, an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] and with diagnoses which included: unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, with other behavioral, Alzheimer's disease (a brain…

    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 before2024-11-07 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
    Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored securely for one (100 Hall Nurse Medication Cart) of four medication carts reviewed for storage of medications. The Nurse Medication Cart for 100 Hall had a torn protective seal on the back of Resident #211's Tramadol HCL 50mg (a narcotic used to treat moderately severe pain) medication blister pill card (a type of medication packaging, with multiple small, sealed compartments that hold individual doses of medication) found in the locked narcotic drawer during review of medication carts. This failure could place all residents at risk of not receiving the therapeutic benefit of medications, adverse reactions to medications, infection, and drug diversion. Findings included: Record review of Resident #211's face sheet undated reflected a [AGE] year-old female first admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included heart failure (the heart is not pumping adequate…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-03-07 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — pattern
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #1, and Resident #3) reviewed for incontinent care. - 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's foley tubing was not touching the floor while Resident #1 was propelling himself between the nursing station and medication room. - 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 3's foley bag and tubing were not touching the floor while Resident #2 was laid in bed. This failure could place residents at risk for pain, infection, injury, and hospitalization. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 03/05/24 revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included: dementia (loss of thinking, remembering, and reasoning, which may interfere…

    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 · D2024-03-07 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs for 2of 5 residents (Resident #2, and Resident #3) reviewed for call lights. The facility failed to have call light was within reach for Resident #2 and Resident #3 while the residents was in bed. This failure could place residents at risk for a delay in care and services, increased falls, and a decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of resident #2's Face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old female was in admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #2 had diagnoses which included: Alzheimer's disease (a brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills), diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar), and Hypertension (high blood pressure). Record review of resident #2's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS of 09 indicating moderate impaired cognition. Further review revealed Resident #2 needed total care assist…

    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 Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-07 · 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 ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene for 1of 5 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for ADLs. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4 was provided personal grooming (fingernail care) by facility staff. This failure could place residents at risk for discomfort, and dignity issues. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #4's face sheet dated 03/05/24 revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on 1. 01/01/24. Resident #4 had diagnoses which included: dementia (loss of thinking, remembering, and reasoning, which may interferes with a person's daily life and activities), major depressive disorder (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness), and hypertension (a condition which the blood vessels have persistently raised pressure) Record review of Resident #4's MDS…

    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 · E2023-09-30 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — pattern
    Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
    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 allegations of abuse and neglect are thoroughly investigated and report results of the investigation to the stage agency within 5 working days of the incident for 2 of 9 residents (Resident #50 and #84) reviewed for allegations of neglect as evidence by: 1. The facility failed to report an unwitnessed fall to the state agency when Resident #84 was found on the floor had a large hematoma to the top of her head and was transferred to the hospital . Resident #84 could not state how she fell. 2. The facility failed to report an unwitnessed fall to the state agency when Resident #50 was found on the floor. Resident #50 was sent to hospital on 7/25/23 and returned 12:30 AM on 7/26/2023. On 7/26/2023 at 9:00 AM, Resident #50 experienced another fall that resulted in a major injury (large hematoma on left top head) and was transported back to hospital. These failures could place residents at the facility not having their complaints 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-30 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolated
    Provide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure dialysis service was provided consistently with professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 residents (Residents #72) reviewed for dialysis services. The facility failed to keep ongoing communication with the dialysis facility for Resident #72. This failure could place residents who received dialysis at risk for complications and not receiving proper care and treatment to meet their needs. Findings included: Record review of Resident #72's face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] was readmitted on [DATE] . Her diagnoses included fluid overload, retention of urine, dependence on dialysis, muscle wasting and atrophy and abnormalities of gait and mobility. Record review of Resident #72's admission MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 15 indicating intact cognition. Record review of Resident #72's care plan undated revealed the resident has diagnosis of renal failure and received dialysis. Goal 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-30 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
    Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 8 (Resident #32) reviewed for medication administration. The facility failed to ensure that LVN A did not administered Resident #4's Prednisolone Acetate Ophthalmic (eye drop medication used to treat inflammation of the eyes) to Resident #32. This failure could place residents who receive medications at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of the medications. Findings included: Resident #32 Record Review of Resident #32 electronic face sheet dated 09/08/23 revealed a [AGE] year-old female who initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #32 had the diagnosis of inflammation of the eyes. Record Review of Resident #32 Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed she had a BIMS score of 10, which indicated…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-30 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure drugs and biological's used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and included the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable when applicable for 2 of 4 medication Carts reviewed for medication storage. The facility failed to ensure the medication (med) chart 100-hall did not have the expired medications Packets of Arginaid ( Arginne powder) ( used to help support the unique nutritional needs of individuals with wounds). The facility failed to ensure the Nurses medication carts 300-hall did not have the opened and undated medications: *Alphagan Brimonidine tartrate ophthalmic solution 0.1% ( used for an alpha adrenergic receptor agonist of indicated for the reduction of elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension). *Prednisolone Acetate ophthalmic suspension 1 vial for ( drug used to treat inflammation of the eyes caused by certain condition), 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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-30 · tag F0920 — isolated
    Provide at least one room set aside to use as a resident dining room and for activities, that is a good size, with good lighting, air flow and furniture.
    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 an adequately furnished space for dining and activities for 1 of 1 dining room and 1 of 1 activity room reviewed for dining and activity rooms. The facility did not provide an adequately furnished dining room or activity room for dining and resident activities. This failure could place the residents at risk for psychosocial harm and decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of the face sheet indicated Resident #55 was a [AGE] year-old male and was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, behavior disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance anxiety and muscle wasting and atrophy (thinning or loss of muscle tissue). Record review of the MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #55 had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 12 which indicated he was moderately cognitively impaired. The MDS indicated Resident #12 needed supervision and 1-person physical assist for all activities of daily…

    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

$25,508 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $25,508 — penalty dated 2023-09-30

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to OAKBEND MEDICAL CENTER — 5 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 53.0≈ chain avg
Health inspection 3 of 53.2-0.2 vs chain
Staffing 2 of 51.8+0.2 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 53.8-0.8 vs chain
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, per CMS)

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
CRAYTON, TOMIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2024
DORMAN, JOHNIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2024
FREUDENBERGER, JOSEPHIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2024
HALEY, JEFFIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2024
KING, ABBYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2024
KING, ELIZABETHIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2024
PISANI, ADAMIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2024
POPATIA, AMIRALIIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2024
STUART, JULIUSIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2024
UTHMAN, EDWARDIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 01/01/2024
HEALTH MANAGEMENT PARTNERS LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 12/20/2024
OAKBEND MEDICAL CENTEROrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 12/20/2024
LACERDA, DENNISIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/03/2025
LACERDA, FELIPEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/07/2025
NALL, JOSEPHIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/20/2024
K.D. GOTCHER, LTD.OrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 12/20/2024
GOTCHER, KARENIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 12/20/2024
KHAWAJA, MUBARAKIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 12/20/2024

CMS files one row per role, so the 22 rows in the source record cover these 18 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.

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

Follow the money — this home’s finances

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

$7.1M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+0.3%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$809K
Related-party expense11% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 76%Medicare 8%Other / private 16%

About 76% 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. This home reported $809K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

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

Cost & finances

$232per resident / day
operating cost
$7,056per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$233per 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 676221. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-19, 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