Baywind Village Skilled Nursing & Rehab
411 Alabama Ave, League City, TX 77573 · For profit - Individual · 107 certified beds · (281) 332-9588 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Apr 2025
- 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 $8,278 in federal fines (most recent 2025-04-16)
- nursing-staff turnover (63%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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) | 4 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 held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 14.0% | 15.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 17.2% | 3.0% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.5% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.7% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.6% | 2.4% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.7% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.0% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 8.5% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.5% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.2% | 3.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 14.2% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.4% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.3% | 1.5% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.2% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.6% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.3% | 12.3% | 12.0% | 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.
48.0% 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 319 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 59.9% 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 187 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 0.87 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 95% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 28% 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 | 48.0%CMS range 41.6–53.4 | 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 | 13.0%CMS range 10.3–15.5 | 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 | 59.9% | 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 | 64.7% | 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 | 40.1% | 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 | 97.7% | 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 | 98.9% | 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 | 0.8% | 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 | 2.7% | 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 | 7.7%CMS range 5.5–10.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.13 | 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 107 beds and averages 90.2 residents a day — about 84% occupied, or roughly 17 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 4.80 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.98 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.58 is at or above 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 4.08 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.09 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 1.09 to 0.71 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 63% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2025-04-16 · 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 reviews the facility failed to ensure the residents had the right to be free from abuse for 1 of 6 residents (CR#1) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to ensure CR#1 was free from abuse when CNA A physically abused CR #1 on 04/24/24 and threatened CR #1's roommate. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The noncompliance began on 04/24/24 and ended on 04/24/24. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could place residents at risk of being abused. Findings included: Record review of CR #1's admission record dated 04/15/25 revealed a-95-year- old female admitted to the facility admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Essential hypertension (High blood pressure), chronic kidney disease, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anxiety disorder, dementia, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety. Record review of CR #1's comprehensive care plan 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-22 · 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 interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assured the accurate acquiring, dispensing and administering of controlled medications and a system of medication records that enabled periodic accurate reconciliation and accounting of all controlled medications to meet the needs of 2 of 3 residents (Residents #1 and Resident # 2) reviewed for pharmacy services.Med Aide B signed out a controlled pain medication from the narcotic control book, did not sign off on the Electronic Medical Administration Record that a controlled medication was administered for Resident #1. LVN A signed out a controlled antianxiety medication from the narcotic control book, did not sign off on the Electronic Medical Administration Record that a controlled medication was administered for Resident #2. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving their medication or receiving double dosage of controlled medications and drug diversion.Findings:Record…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-11-05 · 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 interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assured the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals, and a system of medication records that enabled periodic accurate reconciliation and accounting of all controlled medications to meet the needs of 1 of 3 residents (Residents #1) reviewed for pharmacy services. -LVN V and RN E, who signed out control pain medication from the control book, did not sign off on the TAR or MAR that control medications were administered for Resident #1. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving their medication and drug diversion. Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 11/05/25 revealed an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included displacement fracture of base of neck of right femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture without routine healing (received active treatment for a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-05-07 · tag F0691 — failed to provide colostomy / ostomy care — patternProvide appropriate colostomy, urostomy, or ileostomy 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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who needed colostomy care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 2 of 4 (Resident #76 and Resident #293) residents reviewed for colostomies (surgical opening in which a piece of the colon was diverted to an artificial opening in the abdominal wall to bypass a damaged part of the colon). The facility failed to ensure training, care and documentation was consistent for Resident #76 and Resident #293 as bowel movements were not consistently documented, a colostomy was documented as an ileostomy/urostomy and colostomies were not consistently emptied. The failure could place residents at risk of complications related to a colostomy and emotional distress. Resident #76 and #293 experienced discomfort, anxiety, embarrassment and refused to take medications to prevent constipation as a result of the failure. Findings included: Record review of Resident #76's face sheet dated [DATE], revealed 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 · D2025-05-07 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 that the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by an interdisciplinary team for 1(Resident # 64) of 18 residents reviewed for care plan. Resident #64's care plan was not revised to reflect her D\C use of catheter on 04/20/25. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving needed services and care to improve their health. Findings Include: Resident #64: Record review or Resident #64's face sheet, dated 05/05/2025, revealed an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included essential hypertension (high blood pressure), type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications, lack of coordination, and muscle weakness. Record review of Resident #64's MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #64's BIMS score was blank 15 out of 15 which indicated she was cognitively intact. Review of section H Bladder and Bowel was checked as having an indwelling catheter. Record review of Resident…
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 · D2024-05-24 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident representative when the resident experienced a significant change in condition for 1 (CR #1) of 5 residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to notify CR #1's Responsible Party when she had a hypotensive event and refused to go to the hospital. This failure could result in the resident representative not being aware of conditions that may require them to make medical decisions. Findings included: Record review of CR #'1s face sheet revealed an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included: fracture of unspecified carpal bone right wrist, hypo-osmolality and hyponatremia (a condition where the body retains water and sodium levels in blood are lower than normal), and hypertension. The family member was listed as the Responsible Party and Power of Attorney-care, care conference person, and HIPPA for CR #1. Record review of CR #1's initial MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed CR #1 had…
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 · D2024-05-24 · tag F0624 — isolatedPrepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge from the nursing home.
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 provide and document adequate preparation to residents to ensure safe and orderly transfer or discharge from the facility, for 1 (CR #2) of 3 residents reviewed for transfer/discharge. The facility failed to ensure CR #2 was discharged with Home Health Services in place. This failure could place residents at risk of being discharged without preparation, causing a disruption in their care and services. Findings included: Record review of CR #2's face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included: asthma with acute exacerbation, sepsis, hyperlipidemia, local infection of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, xerosis cutis (abnormally dry skin), Stage 4 pressure ulcer of sacral region, chronic gout, muscle weakness, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (when a person lacks bladder control due to brain, spinal cord or nerve problems), urinary tract infection, cognitive communication deficit, 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 · D2024-03-20 · tag F0552 — isolatedEnsure that residents are fully informed and understand their health status, care and treatments.
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 the resident's had the right to be informed of the risks, and participate in, his or her treatment which included the right to be informed in advance, by the physician or other practitioner or professional, of the risks and benefits of proposed care, of treatment and treatment alternatives or treatment options and to choose the alternative or option he or she preferred, for 1 of 18 residents (CR #1) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to obtain informed consent based on information of the benefits, risks, and options available from CR #1 prior to administering Zoloft, an antidepressant used to treat depression. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving medications without their prior knowledge or consent, or that of their responsible party. Findings include : Record review of CR #1's electronic face sheet revealed an [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included adjustment 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 · D2023-10-04 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
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 dignity and respect for 1 of 9 (Resident #1) residents observed for dignity in that: -The facility failed to have a privacy curtain in Resident #1's room during wound dressing change. This failure could affect resident (s) that required assistance with care at risk for embarrassment and lower self-esteem. Findings: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet revealed an 83year old male admitted to the NF on 04/25/2023 with the following diagnoses: acute cystitis (inflammation of the bladder) without hematuria (blood in urine), obesity, hypertension (high blood pressure), atherosclerosis (build up cholesterol/fat in the artery causing obstruction of blood), coronary artery bypass, pneumonia (infection in the lung), gastro-esophageal reflux disease (acid from the stomach that backs up in the throat), and low back pain. Record review of Resident #1's MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident had a BIMS score of 13 indicating cognition…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-04 · 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 prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infections for 1 of 9 (Resident #1) residents reviewed for infection control in that: -LVN A failed to practice infection control when changing Resident #1's dressing to the sacrum. This failure placed resident at risk for cross contamination and spread of infections and hospitalization. Findings : Record review of Resident #1's face sheet revealed an 83year old male admitted to the NF on 04/25/2023 with the following diagnoses: acute cystitis (inflammation of the bladder) without hematuria (blood in urine), obesity, hypertension (high blood pressure), atherosclerosis (build up cholesterol/fat in the artery causing obstruction of blood), coronary artery bypass, pneumonia (infection in the lung), gastro-esophageal reflux disease (acid from the stomach that backs up in the throat), and low back pain.…
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 before2023-01-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not maintain an infection prevention program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 (Residents #1 and #3) of 3 residents reviewed for infection control. -CNA-A did not wash or sanitize her hands in between assisting multiple residents with feeding. This failure could place residents who required feeding assistance with cross contamination and infection. Findings include: Observation on 01/13/2023 at 12:39pm of CNA-A in the dining area assisting residents with feeding. CNA-A was observed moving from one resident's table to another resident's table to assist with feeding. CNA-A was not observed washing or sanitizing her hands in between assisting residents. Interview on 01/13/2023 with CNA-A at 2:27pm, she stated she has been employed at the facility for about 3-4 months and she was still in training. CNA-A stated hand hygiene was supposed to be performed before entering a resident's room and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-01-13 · 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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that the facility provided pharmaceutical services (including procedures that ensure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 1 out of 5 residents (Resident #127) reviewed for pharmacy services. -The facility failed to ensure that Resident #127's Retacrit injection, a medication used to treat anemia caused by chronic kidney disease, was received from the pharmacy. -The facility failed to ensure that Resident #127's Retacrit injection, a medication use to treat anemia caused by chronic kidney disease, was administered per physician order. These failures could place residents whose medications were supervised by the facility at risk of experiencing serious side effects and or adverse reactions from possible interruptions to their medication regimen. Findings Included: Record review of Resident #127's admission record revealed she was 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 · D2023-01-13 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 one of one kitchen reviewed for food service safety, in that: -1 plastic container of expired food was present in the refrigerator. This failure could place residents at risk for cross-contamination and foodborne illnesses. Findings include: Observation of the kitchen on 01/11/2023 at 9:25am, revealed 1 turkey wrap in a clear plastic container dated 01/07/2023 with a use by date of 01/10/2023 in refrigerator. Interview and observation on 01/11/2023 at 9:37am with Dietary Aid A, she stated she had been employed at the facility for 6 years. She stated that the turkey wrap was made on 01/07/2023, and it she should have been thrown out after the use by date on 01/10/2023. She stated that staff check for expired food in the refrigerator twice daily before breakfast meal service and after dinner service. She stated that that the turkey wrap should have been thrown out on 01/10/23 after the dinner service,…
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 · D2023-01-13 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolatedDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
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 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 result in providing harborage and breeding areas for insects, rodents and other pests which could infest the facility. Findings include: An observation on 1/11/23 at 9:26 am., revealed the facility's dumpster area, which was in the lot behind the dietary department had a commercial-sized dumpster with garbage inside of it. There were 2 lids on the dumpster, the right lid was open. Interview and observation on 1/11/23 at 9:26 am, with Dietary Aide A, she said that she did not know that the dumpster lids must always be closed, she said that she thought the regulation to do so would be to avoid infestation of pest. Interview on 1/11/23 at 9:50 am with the Dietary Manager/Dietician she said that the dumpsters outside are to be kept closed to prevent rodents, pests, and insects out of the dumpster and from entering the facility. 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 · D2023-01-13 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that are complete and accurately documented for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #127) reviewed for resident records, in that: -Resident #127's progress notes were not complete or accurate regarding her Retacrit medication. This deficient practice placed residents who receive medications from facility staff at risk for less than therapeutic benefits and/or not receiving ordered medications due to incomplete documentation. Findings include: Record review of Resident #127's admission record revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She was diagnosed with end stage renal (kidney) disease (a condition in which a person's kidneys cease functioning on a permanent basis leading to the need for regular long-term dialysis or kidney transplant to maintain life), dialysis (a procedure to remove waste products and excessive…
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.
“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
$8,278 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,278 — penalty dated 2025-04-16
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 CHAMBERS COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 1 — 7 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 | 5 of 5 | 3.0 | +2.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 6 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 / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| WATERFORD PARTNERS LTD | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2021 |
| BARCELO, BRYCE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2021 |
| BARCELO, CECIL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2021 |
| BARCELO, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2021 |
| CAMPBELL, FRANCES | Individual | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2021 |
| KOVAR, NATASHA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2021 |
| NEWTON, ELIZABETH | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 02/22/2024 |
| VILLAGE SKILLED NURSING & REHAB CARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/01/2021 |
| CLARK, JONATHAN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/07/2024 |
| LOCKHART, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 10 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
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 675323. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-07, 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.