Buckner Westminster Place
2201 Horseshoe Ln, Longview, TX 75605 · Non profit - Corporation · 20 certified beds · (903) 234-0000 Medicare only — no Medicaid
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (31% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- inspectors recorded 3 serious findings 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 $29,716 in federal fines (most recent 2025-03-11)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
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) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 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 1 to 4 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 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 | 20.7% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 2.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 0.0% | 3.3% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.4% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.4% | 13.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.6% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.0% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.2% | 25.7% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 16.6% | 12.3% | 12.0% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
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.
62.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 146 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 87.7% 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 81 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 0.92 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 2% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 62.3%CMS range 55.9–67.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.2%CMS range 7.6–15.3 | 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 | 87.7% | 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 | 85.2% | 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 | 86.4% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 98.6% | 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 | 1.0% | 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 | 1.9% | 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 4.5–13.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.96 | 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 20 beds and averages 20.0 residents a day — about 100% occupied, or roughly 0 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.28 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.74 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.53 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 5.00 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.39 on weekdays — 7% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.79 to 0.61 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 31% 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
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 · K2024-05-09 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assure the accurate dispensing and administering of all drugs and biologicals to meet the needs of each resident for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for pharmacy services (Resident #'s 1 and 2). 1.The facility failed to provide 7 (daily) doses of Resident #1's physician ordered Enoxaparin/Lovenox (a blood thinner to prevent blood clots) between the dates of 2/15/24 - 2/21/24. 2.The facility failed to provide 11 (weekly) doses of Resident #2's physician ordered Bydureon (treats Type 2 Diabetes and controls blood sugar levels) between the dates of 12/11/23 - 2/13/24. 3.Staff falsified documentation indicating they had administered Lovenox for Resident #1 and Bydureon for Resident #2 when those medications were not available in the facility. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 5/8/24 at 1:30 PM. While the IJ was removed on 5/9/24 at 1:21 PM, 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 · K2024-05-09 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 remained free of any significant medication errors for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for medication errors (Resident #'s 1 and 2). 1.The facility failed to provide 7 doses of Resident #1's physician ordered Enoxaparin/Lovenox (a blood thinner to prevent blood clots) between the dates of 2/15/24 - 2/21/24. 2.The facility failed to provide 11 doses of Resident #2's physician ordered Bydureon (treats Type 2 Diabetes) between the dates of 12/11/23 - 2/13/24. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The IJ began on 12/11/23 and ended on 2/29/24. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. These failures placed all residents at risk for not receiving therapeutic dosages of their medications as ordered by the physician, which could result in serious complications, decline in health, hospitalization, and death. Findings included: 1.Record review of the undated face sheet for Resident #1 indicated she was an…
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.
- Actual harm · H2025-03-11 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — patternImmediately 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 consult with the physician when the resident experienced a change in condition for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for a change of condition. The facility failed to notify the physician of changes in surgical incision for Resident #1 after finding surgical incision dressing saturated on 9/14/2024 and 9/16/2024. The facility failed to notify the physician of a change in surgical incision dressing saturation for Resident #1 resulting in infection identified on post-op visit on 9/25/2024 requiring oral antibiotic treatment. The noncompliance was identified as Past Non-Compliance (PNC). The non-compliance began on 9/13/2024 and ended on 9/27/2024. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk for a delay in medical treatment, worsening in condition. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated 3/10/2025 indicated Resident #1 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.
- Actual harm · H2025-03-11 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 2 (Resident #1) residents reviewed for surgical incision. The facility failed to clarify and obtain surgical incision care orders for Resident #1 upon admission on [DATE]. The facility failed to clarify hospital discharge orders for surgical incision site care upon admission on [DATE] for Resident #1. The facility failed to assess and identify a change in condition for Resident #1's surgical incision site to left hip on 9/14/2024 resulting in an infection requiring antibiotic on follow-up appointment with surgeon on 9/25/2024. The noncompliance was identified as Past Non-Compliance (PNC). The non-compliance began on 9/13/2024 and ended on 9/27/2024. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. This failure could place residents of risk for serious harm, and not receiving appropriate care, treatment with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-06-04 · tag F0801 — patternEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills set to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, taking into consideration resident assessments, individual plans of care and the number, acuity and diagnoses of the facility's resident population in accordance with the facility assessment for 3 of 20 kitchen staff (Cook A, Waitstaff B, and [NAME] C) reviewed for qualified dietary staff . The facility failed to ensure [NAME] A, Waitstaff B, and [NAME] C met the requirements for food handling by obtaining a current and valid Food Handler's Certificate. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their nutritional needs met and placing them at risk for food borne illnesses. Findings include: Record review of an undated dietary staff list revealed [NAME] A (hired 4/22/25), and Waitstaff B (hired 4/22/25) did not have a Food Handler's Certificate. [NAME] C's (hired 7/21/11) Food Handler's Certificate expired on 3/15/25. During an interview on 6/02/25 at 2:32 PM, the ADM said he…
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 · D2025-06-04 · 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 interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet each resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 2 of 8 residents (Resident #12 and Resident #16) reviewed for care plans. 1.The facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan for Resident #16's planned weight loss of 8.35 % from 5/7/2025 to 6/1/2025 and implement recommendations for multivitamin with minerals daily and supplemental Ensure. 2.The facility failed to ensure Resident #12's comprehensive care plan was developed to address nectar thickened liquids as prescribed by the physician . These failures could place residents at risk of not having individual needs met, a decreased quality of life, and cause residents not to receive needed services. Findings include: 1. Record review 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-04 · tag F0940 — failed to train staff — isolatedDevelop, implement, and/or maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff members.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to develop, implement, and maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff, individuals providing services under a contractual arrangement and volunteers, consistent with their expected roles for 1 of 15 employees (Director of Culinary Services) reviewed for training. The facility failed to ensure the Director of Culinary Services received training on the topics of HIV, restraint reduction, fall prevention, resident rights, behavioral health, and infection prevention and control. This failure could place residents at risk for unmet needs. Findings included: Record review of personnel records for the Director of Culinary Services indicated a hire date of 01/13/25. The file did not indicate training on the topics of HIV, restraint reduction, fall prevention, resident rights, behavioral health, or infection prevention and control for the Director of Culinary Services. During an interview on 06/04/25 at 11:41 AM, the HR Director said the Director of Culinary Services was responsible for taking care of his…
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 · D2025-06-04 · tag F0943 — isolatedGive their staff education on dementia care, and what abuse, neglect, and exploitation are; and how to report abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
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 training to their staff that at a minimum educated staff on activities that constituted abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property and procedures for 1 of 15 employees (Director of Culinary Services) reviewed for staff training. The facility failed to ensure the Director of Culinary Services received abuse training. This failure could place residents at risk of abuse, neglect, and exploitation and a poor quality of care. Findings included: Record review of personnel records for the Director of Culinary Services indicated a hire date of 01/13/25. The file did not indicate any abuse training for the Director of Culinary Services. During an interview on 06/04/25 at 11:41 AM, the HR Director said the Director of Culinary Services was responsible for taking care of his trainings that were required. She said the managers got emails about their trainings and they were responsible for taking their own trainings. She said he had not completed any of his required trainings. During an interview 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 · E2024-05-15 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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 a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 1 of 17 residents reviewed for environment. (Resident #1) The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's air vent and closet was free from a black substance. The facility failed to repair the open space where the airconditioning unit was. The facility covered the open space with cardboard and tape. These failures could place residents at risk of an unsafe or uncomfortable environment and a decrease in quality of life and self-worth. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 05/15/2024 indicated Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), and pneumonia (infection that inflames air sacs in one or both lungs, which may fill with fluid). Review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS assessment…
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 · E2024-05-15 · 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, interviews and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation in that: 1. Paint, primer, WD 40 and GOO gone stored near dry food storage. 2. Sanitizer sprayed on surface and not allowed to dry prior to setting cutting board and preparing food. 3. Improperly secured hair from kitchen staff member. These deficient practices could place residents who received meals from the kitchen at risk for chemical contamination and food-borne illness. The findings were: During an observation on 5/13/2024 at 9:25 AM, it was observed a utility cart with 3 cans of paint, 1 can of primer, 4 bottles of goo gone and WD 40 located in dry food storage area near juice box storage. During an observation on 5/14/2024 at 8:10 AM, it was observed the utility cart remained in dry storage room with 3 cans of paint, 1 can of primer, 4 bottles of goo be gone and WD 40 located in dry food storage area near juice box storage. During an…
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 · D2024-05-15 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs were provided for 1 of 17 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 had a call light within reach. This failure could place residents at risk of injury that could lead to possible falls, major injuries, hospitalization, and unmet needs. Findings Included: 1.Review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 05/15/2024 indicated Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), pneumonia (infection that inflames air sacs in one or both lungs, which may fill with fluid) and parkinsonism (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 · Dcited before2024-05-15 · 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 provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 3 laundry rooms. ([NAME] House laundry room) The facility failed to ensure soiled laundry was properly bagged in 1 of 3 laundry rooms. These failures placed residents at risk for cross contamination and infection. Findings included: During an observation on 5/15/2024 at 10:46 a.m., CNA K opened the laundry door at the [NAME] House and located in front of the washer was soiled clothing, towels, wash clothes sitting in a shower chair and a white laundry basket seated on the floor directly in front of the shower chair. Located in the washer was 1 load of clothing sitting in the washer. CNA K said big blankets go in the yellow bins and was transferred to the bigger laundry room located in the main building. CNA K said soiled…
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 · D2023-03-22 · 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 review the facility failed to ensure residents have 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 and to choose the option he or she prefers for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #7) reviewed for right to be informed about consents. The facility failed to ensure Resident #7 had signed psychotropic consent for Lorazepam (antianxiety). This failure could place residents at risk of receiving medications without their prior knowledge or informed consent, or that of their responsible party. The findings included: Record review of Resident #7's face sheet, dated 03/23/23, indicated a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses which included Parkinson's (a brain disorder that causes unintended or uncontrollable movements, such as shaking, stiffness, and difficulty with balance and coordination), atrial fibrillation (extremely…
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 · D2023-03-22 · 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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, which included both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments for 2 of 5 residents (Residents #7 and #12) reviewed for care plan timing and revisions. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #7's care plan was updated to include psychotic medication of lorazepam. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #12's care plans was updated to reflect a problem for diuretic and interventions. These deficient practices could place residents at risk of not receiving appropriate care to meet their current needs. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #7's face sheet, dated 03/23/23, indicated a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Parkinson's (a brain disorder that causes unintended or uncontrollable movements, such as shaking, stiffness, and difficulty with balance 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 before2023-03-22 · 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 establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 10 residents (Residents #8 and #4) reviewed for infection control practices. 1. CNA A failed to change her gloves and sanitize her hands after performing peri care to Resident #8. 2. LVN C failed to change gloves and sanitize his hands after cleaning Resident #4's wound and before applying treatment as ordered during wound care. These failures could place residents at risk for infections. Findings include: 1. A record review of Resident #8's, undated, face sheet indicated she was83-years-old who was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included: fracture of left femur (broken hip), pain in left hip, Alzheimer's Disease (progressive mental deterioration), and acute cystitis (inflammation…
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
$29,716 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $10,280 — penalty dated 2025-03-11
- $19,436 — penalty dated 2024-05-09
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| EADY, LISA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2018 |
| POTTER, DEBORAH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2018 |
| ROBBINS, KENNETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/21/2025 |
| SAADE, WALID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2018 |
| REYES, ALBERT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/02/2007 |
| MOORE, JESSICA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/12/2012 |
| BUCKNER RETIREMENT SERVICES INC | Organization | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/1996 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 7 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.
1 organizational owner 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 $359K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
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
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Texas Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 676167. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-04, 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.