Mason Creek Transitional Care of Katy
21727 Provincial Blvd, Katy, TX 77450 · Government - Hospital district · 125 certified beds · (281) 717-1302 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (32% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Sep 2024
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- 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 $16,175 in federal fines (most recent 2024-11-07)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 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.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 15.8% | 15.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.9% | 3.0% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.5% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.5% | 2.4% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.8% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.5% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.6% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.8% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.7% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 10.4% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 3.4% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.7% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 34.8% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.9% | 12.3% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.14 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.40 | 2.06 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
46.3% 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 78 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 62.5% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 40 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 0.94 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 96% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 46.3%CMS range 36.0–56.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.3%CMS range 8.9–16.8 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 62.5% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 65.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 60.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 92.2% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 3.9% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.3% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.7%CMS range 3.0–10.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.95 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 125 beds and averages 97.8 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 27 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.20 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.56 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.87 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 2.68 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.41 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.61 to 0.42 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 32% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
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 · J2024-11-07 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and interview, the facility failed to immediately consult with the resident's physician when there was a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status for 1 of 9 residents (CR #1) reviewed for change of condition. The facility failed to notify CR #1's physician or seek medical guidance when he experienced a drop in oxygen saturation during physical therapy just after breakfast on [DATE]. At approximately 3:00 p.m., CR #1 experienced a drastic desaturation (a decrease in oxygen saturation, low blood oxygen concentration) to 53% after a shower and resulted in loss of consciousness, initiation of CPR, and intubation (a medical procedure that involves inserting a flexible tube into the trachea to help maintain an open airway). CR #1 expired on [DATE] on hospice at his home. An IJ was identified on [DATE] at 2:52 p.m The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 2:52 p.m. While the IJ was removed on [DATE], the facility remained out of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-11-07 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice and the resident's goals and preferences for 1 of 9 residents (CR #1) reviewed for respiratory care. 1. The facility failed to increase CR #1's oxygen or consult/seek further guidance from CR #1's physician to increase his oxygen to 6-8 L/min during a shower on [DATE] after his family members informed staff his oxygen requirement increased during exerting activities, including showers. The facility failed to monitor CR #1's oxygen administration/O2 levels while in the shower and ensure CR #1's oxygen was working properly or immediately call for a nurse when CNA A and CNA B noted a change of condition (CR #1's skin color was pale). This resulted in CR #1's drastic desaturation (a decrease in oxygen saturation, low blood oxygen concentration) to 53%. CR #1 lost consciousness and required CPR and intubation (a medical…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-09-25 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for resident abuse. The facility failed to prevent Resident #1 from being physically abused by LVN B on 12/05/23. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance (PNC) IJ. The noncompliance began on 12/05/23 and ended on 12/12/23. The facility corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could place residents at risk of physical harm, mental anguish, and/or emotional distress. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 09/25/24 revealed an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility initially on 11/09/21 and readmitted [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included Major depressive disorder (mental health condition that cause loss of interest in activities that once brought joy), dementia (impair ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities), and anxiety disorder…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-05-14 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
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 maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices on each resident that are complete and accurately documented for 1 of 5 (CR#1) residents reviewed for clinical records. The facility failed to maintain a complete and accurately documented clinical record for CR#1. This failure could place residents at risk of not getting the care and services to improve their quality of life due to not maintaining complete and accurate clinical records.Record review of CR#1's face sheet dated 5/14/2026 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included disorders of kidney and ureter(impair urine production filtration or drainage), muscle spasm (involuntary contraction of the muscles), urinary tract infection (bacterial infection of the urinary system), severe sepsis with septic shock(a severe infection that triggers an extreme immune response where blood to vital organs is reduced), benign…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-03-12 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments for two of eight medication carts observed for medication security. -An unlocked and unattended medication cart was observed in a resident hall (Hall 400). -An unlocked medication cart (Hall 300 Nurse's medication cart) was observed near the nurses' station, with the assigned nurse in another room with her back turned.The failure placed the residents at risk of drug diversion by staff, residents, and visitors, overdose, or residents' medications not being available when needed. Findings included:Observation and interview on 03/12/2026 at 08:19 a.m. revealed an unlocked and unattended medication cart in front of a resident's room. The room was the most distant from the nurses' station, located near the hall exit. The doors of the residents' rooms near the medication cart were observed to be closed. There were no staff within sight of the cart. At 08:21 a.m., LVN A exited room [ROOM…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-12-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food procurement. - The facility failed to ensure food was labeled and dated. - The facility failed to ensure that food was off the floor in the dry food area. These failures could place residents who ate food from the kitchen at risk of food borne illness and disease. Findings Included: Observation on 12/10/2024 at 08:53 AM, revealed in 1 of 1 walk in refrigerator a metal bowl with clear plastic wrap with a with no date or item description. [NAME] B took the bowl out of the refrigerator. Observation on 12/10/2024 at 08:56 AM, revealed on the floor of 1 of 1 walk in pantry a 24-ounce (oz), less than a 25 precent (%) full bottle of syrup dated 3/17 between 1 of 3 shelves on the right side of pantry and an 1-oz bag of chips was observed on the floor between the shelves near the wall. [NAME] A removed the syrup and bag of chips from the dry food storage area. Observation on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-12 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident that included describing the services to be furnished to attain or maintain measurable objectives to meet the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, for 1 of 18 residents (Residents #66) reviewed for care plans. Resident #66 did not have a care plan in place for the care and monitoring of her midline. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk of not receiving individualized care and services to meet their needs. The findings included: Record review of Resident #66's face sheet dated 12/2024 revealed she was an [AGE] year-old female that was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of pressure ulcer of sacral region stage 4 (full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon, or muscle) dementia, abnormal weight loss, chronic kidney disease, constipation, dysphagia (difficulty or discomfort swallowing),…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-12 · tag F0694 — isolatedProvide for the safe, appropriate administration of IV fluids for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents received parenteral fluids administered consistent with professional standards of practice and in accordance with physician orders for 1 (Residents #66) of 1 Residents reviewed for peripheral intravenous care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #66 had a physician order or care plan for the care and monitoring of her midline. The facility failed to ensure Resident #66's midline dressing was changed every 7 days per facility policy. The failures placed residents at risk of developing an infection. Findings included: Record review of Resident #66's face sheet dated 12/2024 revealed she was an [AGE] year-old female that was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of pressure ulcer of sacral region stage 4 (full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon, or muscle) dementia, abnormal weight loss, chronic kidney disease, constipation, dysphagia (difficulty or discomfort swallowing), cognitive communication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-12 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services that assured the accurate acquiring, receiving, and administering medications for 1 (Resident #78) of 8 residents reviewed for pharmaceutical services. -Medication Aide A failed to administer the correct dosage for Resident #78's transdermal nicotine patch. -Medication Aide A failed to rotate the transdermal nicotine patch on Resident #78's body. This failure placed the resident at risk for skin irritation and not receiving the full intended therapeutic dosage of the medication. Findings: Resident #78 Record review of Resident #78's face sheet dated 12/12/24 revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the NF on 10/22/24 with the diagnoses that included the following: fatigue, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), gastro-esophageal reflux disease (when stomach acid or bile {fluid produced by the liver and stored in the gallbladder that helps with digestion} that irritates the food pipe lining, respiratory…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection and prevention control program that included, at a minimum, a system for preventing and controlling infections for 2 residents (Resident #78 and Resident #777) of 8 residents reviewed for infection control. -Mediation Aide A failed to sanitize blood pressure equipment after taking Resident #777's blood pressure. Medication Aide proceeded to take Resident #78's blood pressure. This failure placed the residents at risk for cross contamination, infections, and a decrease in quality of life. Findings: Resident #777 Resident #777 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the NF on 11/30/34. Resident #777's diagnoses included the following: hypotension (low blood pressure), dementia (memory loss and judgement), Alzheimer's disease (progressive disease that destroys memory and other mental functions), and hypertension (high blood pressure). Resident #78 Record review of Resident #78's face sheet dated 12/12/24 revealed a [AGE]…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-12 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — isolatedMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility was free of pests in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed: - A roach was observed on a wall in the kitchen where food was being prepared for residents. These failures could place residents at risk for infections. The findings included: In an observation on 12/10/2024 at 11:39 AM, while [NAME] B was preparing soft mechanical food a semi-large roach crossed the wall in front of her and went behind a food mixer on the counter less than an arm's reach away. In an interview on 12/10/2024 at 11:39 AM, [NAME] B stated that she seen the roach on the wall while preparing food. She stated that she had seen roaches in the kitchen, but not a lot. She stated she last saw a roach about 1.5 months ago. She stated that when she saw pests in the kitchen, she informed the DM who informed maintenance. In an interview on 12/10/2024 at 11:41 AM, the DM stated that she had seen the roach on the wall while [NAME] B was preparing food. She stated that pest control services 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-11-10 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food procurement in that: -The facility failed to dispose of expired food items and keep Scoops stored outside of food bins. These failures could place residents at risk of food borne illness and diseases. Findings include: Observation of the facility's kitchen and interview on 11/07/23 between 8:30 am and 8:40 am with the Food Service Manager revealed the following: Sliced American Cheese in a plastic container dated 10/27/23 stored in the refrigerator. Sliced Swiss Cheese in a plastic container dated 10/03/23 stored in the refrigerator. Cheese Parmigiana in a plastic container dated 9/07/23 stored in the refrigerator. Scoops for bulk food were left in the sugar and flour bins stored in the storeroom. Interview with the Dietary Food Service Manager on 11/07/23 at 8:35 AM, stated that the plastic containers with cheese should have been used or discarded prior to the used…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-10 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide 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 1 of 6 residents (Resident #60) reviewed for ADL care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #60 was provided incontinent care in a timely manner . 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #60 was provided grooming (dry skin) causing her skin to be dry and flaky. These failures could place residents at risk for discomfort, and dignity issues. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #60's face sheet, dated 11/10/23, reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #60 had diagnoses which included Morbid (severe) obesity (weight is more than 80 to 100 pounds above ideal body weight), hypertension (a condition in which the blood vessels have persistently raised pressure), and diaper…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-10 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide 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 1 of 6 residents (Resident #60) reviewed for incontinent care. - The facility failed to ensure CNA M completely cleaned Resident #1 during incontinent care. This failure could place residents at risk for pain, infection, injury, and hospitalization. Findings included: Record review of Resident #60's face sheet, dated 11/10/23, reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #60 had diagnoses which included Morbid (severe)obesity (weight is more than 80 to 100 pounds above ideal body weight), hypertension (a condition in which the blood vessels have persistently raised pressure), and diaper dermatitis (a form of irritated skin ). Record review of Resident #60's quarterly MDS assessment, 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.
- No harm found · C2023-11-10 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility must dispose of garbage and refuse properly for 1 of 1 dumpster reviewed for garbage disposal. -The facility failed to ensure the dumpster lids and doors were secured. This failure could place residents at risk of infection from improperly disposed garbage. Findings include: Observation on 11-07-23 at 9:00 am, revealed the facility's dumpster area, which was in the lot behind the dietary department had a commercial -size dumpster ¾ full of garbage and the top lid was wide open. Interview on 11-07-23 at 9:05 am, with the Food Service Manager, she stated that the dumpster lids always must be closed to keep vermin, pests, and insects out of the dumpster and from entering the facility. Record review of facility's, undated, policy and procedure Dispose of Garbage and Refuse reflected all garbage will be disposed of daily and as needed throughout the day. Procedure:. all dumpster lids and doors shall be closed or sealed at all times. Trash will be deposited into containers outside the premises.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$16,175 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $8,021 — penalty dated 2024-11-07
- $8,154 — penalty dated 2024-09-25
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 THE ENSIGN GROUP — 342 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 4.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
The other 341 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 341; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIBERTY COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO 1 | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 04/01/2017 |
| AHO, ANDREW | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2017 |
| REININGER, DAVID | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2017 |
| BURNAM, SOON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/01/2017 |
| KEETCH, CHAD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/01/2011 |
| STRATTON, CHARLES | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/07/2005 |
| CANE ISLAND HEALTHCARE, INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2017 |
| ENSIGN SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2016 |
| NATIONAL HEALTH INVESTORS, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2017 |
| TEXAS NHI INVESTORS, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2017 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 10 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 10% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 676194. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-12, 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.