John Paul II Nursing Home
209 S 3rd St, Kenedy, TX 78119 · Non profit - Corporation · 58 certified beds · (830) 583-9841 Medicaid only — no Medicare
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (24% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
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 | 5 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 | 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 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 20.9% | 15.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.7% | 3.0% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 4.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 7.4% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 9.1% | 2.4% | 6.5% | worse 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 | 3.4% | 3.3% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 20.3% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 24.2% | 18.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.1% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.0% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.3% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.94 | 2.17 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.20 | 2.06 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 58 beds and averages 38.3 residents a day — about 66% occupied, or roughly 20 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.30 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.40 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.99 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 2.90 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.46 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.42 to 0.34 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 24% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-12 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely 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 interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown sources are reported immediately but not later than 2 hours ( for an injury of unknown origin involving serious bodily injury) to the administrator of the facility and to other officials, including to the State Survey Agency in accordance with State law through established procedures, for 1 of 4 Residents (Resident #9) reviewed for a fall injury, in that: The facility did not report an allegation of injury of unknown origin with serious injury to the State Survey Agency (HHSC) within the 2 hours time frame for Resident #9's unwitnessed fall that occurred on 6/19/25. This deficient practice could affect any resident and could contribute to the non-reporting of injuries of unknown origin. The findings were: Review of Resident #'s 9 face sheet dated 9/12/25, revealed a [AGE] year-old female originally 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-12 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to have evidence all allegations of an injury of unknown with serious bodily injury were thoroughly investigated and documented for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #9) reviewed for a fall injury. The facility failed to have evidence that a thorough investigation was conducted following the allegation Resident #9 had an unwitnessed fall which resulted in serious bodily injury. These failures could place residents at risk for abuse and neglect by not investigating injuries of unknown origin that involve serious bodily injury. The findings were: Record review of Resident # 9's face sheet, dated 9/12/25, revealed a [AGE] year-old female originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Alzheimer's (a progressive disease that affects memory and other mental functions), anxiety disorder ( a mental health disease in which persistent feeling of worry and fear interfere with daily tasks), and Parkinson's disease ( a disorder of the central…
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 · D2025-09-12 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature controls and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for one medication cart out of two carts reviewed for medication storage, in that : LVN A left the medication cart unsecured on Hallway two while administering medications. These deficient practices could place residents at risk for misappropriation, misuse or tampering of medications. The findings included: Observation on 09/11/2025 at 09:34 a.m. on hall way two revealed that the medication cart was left unattended and not locked. During an interview on 9/11/2025, at 09:45 with LVN A, it was revealed she had left the medication cart unlocked, which was a practice she claimed to have never done before. Her focus was checking a resident that led to the oversight. She acknowledged the potential for misappropriation, misuse, and harm if someone were to gain unauthorized access to the cart and acquire medications. Interview on 09/11/2025 at 10:30 a.m. the DON,…
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 · D2024-08-09 · tag F0813 — isolatedHave a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain and ensure safe and sanitary storage of residents' food items for 1 of 5 residents' (Resident #7) refrigerators reviewed. The personal refrigerator in Resident #7's room contained food items which were unlabeled and undated. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of foodborne illness due to consuming foods which are spoiled. The findings were: Observations on 8/06/2024 at 10:15 a.m., revealed Resident #7's personal refrigerator contained a cinnamon roll and a cupcake in an unlabeled and undated zip lock bag. Further observation on 8/06/2024 of Resident #7's personal refrigerator at 11:50 a.m. revealed the cinnamon roll and cupcake in an unlabeled and undated zip-lock bag was still present. Interview with Resident #7 on 8/06/2024 at 1020 a.m. revealed she could not recall how long the cinnamon roll and cupcake had been in her personal refrigerator or who brought it. On 8/06/2024 at 10:30 a.m., LVN A stated during an interview that she was assigned nurse for Resident #7's room. She…
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 · E2023-06-30 · tag F0730 — patternObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct a performance review at least once every 12 months and provide regular in-service education based on the outcome of these reviews for 6 of 6 CNA's, NA's or RA's (RA F, NA G, NA H, NA I, NA J, NA K) reviewed for performance reviews, in that: The facility failed to conduct performance reviews at least every 12 months for RA F, NA G, NA H, NA I, NA J, NA K. This failure could result in residents not receiving the necessary care and services due to nurse aides not receiving training based on their performance review outcome. The findings included: Record review of the facility's personnel files revealed the personnel files of RN F (hired 09/15/2014), CNA G (hired 07/19/2022), CNA H (hired 05/07/1991), CNA I (hired 07/01/2010), CNA J (hired 06/20/2022) and CNA K (hired 06/18/2012) . During an interview on 06/30/2023 at 1:22 p.m., the DON stated she was aware that aides were required to have a 12-month performance review every year. The DON stated she was unable to find where the previous DON had the paperwork. She…
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 · E2023-06-30 · 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 for 1 of 1 kitchen (Main Kitchen), in that: The facility failed to ensure an opened items in the reach in refrigerators were dated or discarded correctly This deficient practice could place residents who ate food from the kitchen at risk for foodborne illness. The findings included: During an observation, in the dry storage area, on 06/27/2023 at 11:59 a.m., revealed a box container of Idaho potatoes with a received date of 06.23.2023, but no opened date. During an observation, in the walk-in refrigerator, on 06/27/2023 at 12:04 p.m., revealed one 32 oz. container of Arrezzio chopped garlic with no opened date or received date; one 3 lb. container of Daisy cottage cheese with a received date 06/23/2023 but no opened date; one 18 oz of egg white with no received date; three 16 oz packages of cooked ham with no received date on them. During an observation, in a standing freezer, on 06/27/2023 at 12:13…
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 · E2023-06-30 · tag F0944 — patternConduct mandatory training, for all staff, on the facility’s Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) training that outlines and informs staff of the elements and goals of the facility's QAPI program for 10 of 16 employees (RA F, NA G, NA H, NA I, NA J, NA K, LVN L, RN M, LVN N, LVN O) reviewed for training, in that: The facility failed to ensure RA F, NA G, NA H, NA I, NA J, NA K, LVN L, RN M, LVN N, LVN O completed QAPI training within the last year. These failures could affect residents and place them at risk of poor care or victimization due to lack of staff training. Findings included: a. Record review of Staff Roster, dated 06/30/2023, revealed RA F was hired on 09/15/2014. Record review of RA F's training history revealed RA F had not completed QAPI training in the last year. b. Record review of Staff Roster, dated 06/30/2023, revealed CNA G was hired on 07/19/2022. Record review of CNA G's training history revealed CNA G had not completed QAPI training in the last year. c. Record review of Staff Roster, dated 06/30/2023, revealed CNA H was hired 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 · E2023-06-30 · tag F0949 — failed to train staff on dementia and abuse — patternProvide behavior health training consistent with the requirements and as determined by a facility assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide mandatory effective behavioral health training for 16 of 16 employees (RA F, NA G, NA H, NA I, NA J, NA K, LVN L, RN M, LVN N, LVN O, MR, DM, AD, DON, MDS Coordinator and SW)reviewed for training, in that: The facility failed to ensure RA F, NA G, NA H, NA I, NA J, NA K, LVN L, RN M, LVN N, LVN O, MR, DM, AD, DON, MDS Coordinator and SW completed behavioral health training within the previous year. This failure could place residents at risk of not attaining or maintaining their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being due to lack of staff training. The findings included: a. Record review of Staff Roster, dated 06/30/2023, revealed RA F was hired on 09/15/2014. Record review of RA F's training history revealed RA F had not completed Behavioral Health training in the last year. b. Record review of Staff Roster, dated 06/30/2023, revealed CNA G was hired on 07/19/2022. Record review of CNA G's training history revealed CNA G had not completed Behavioral Health training in the last year. c.…
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 · D2023-06-30 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents have a right to personal privacy for 2 of 4 residents (Residents #20 and, #29) reviewed for privacy, in that: 1. CNA A did not completely close Resident #20's privacy curtain while providing catheter care for the resident. 2. CNA B and CNA C did not completely close Resident #29's privacy curtain while providing incontinent care for the resident. This deficient practice could place residents at-risk of loss of dignity due to lack of privacy. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #20's face sheet, dated 06/29/2023, revealed an admission date of 01/01/2019, and a readmission date of 09/06/2022, with diagnoses which included: Dementia (decline in cognitive abilities), Cellulitis(skin infection), Depressive disorder (mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), Anxiety disorder (A group of mental illnesses that cause constant fear and worry), Retention of urine (inability to…
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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in TX
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 45E409. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-12, 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.