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

Marbridge Villa

2504 Bliss Spillar Road, Manchaca, TX 78652 · Non profit - Corporation · 92 certified beds · (512) 282-1811 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (512) 282-1811 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
$45,778 in federal fines
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (29% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
Worth asking about
  • the CMS record shows $45,778 in federal fines (most recent 2024-02-20)
  • about 29% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies

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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
1760 FM 967 Ste B · (512) 295-7877 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
220 S FM 1626 · (512) 295-2437 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
11501 Menchaca Rd · (512) 296-2142 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
2504 Bliss Spillar Rd

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
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 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 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.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased11.8%15.8%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight2.8%3.0%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.8%0.3%0.9%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection3.9%0.8%2.0%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms1.3%2.4%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury0.6%3.3%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened8.6%14.0%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication29.6%18.0%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%98.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers2.1%3.8%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control16.0%13.4%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table28.2%9.6%17.1%worse

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

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.

0.33U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.16hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.14hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.03hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 54% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identifiednot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF staynot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsenednot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalizationnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.891.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.44
RN hours/ resident / day
1.18
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.92
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.53
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.42
RN hoursweekends
29.3%
Total nursing turnover
12.5%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 92 beds and averages 80.1 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 12 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 4.53 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.44 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.92 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 4.06 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.73 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.45 to 0.42 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 29% 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

4
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-05-29)
5
at the previous standard inspection (2024-04-11)

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

Inspection deficiencies

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

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

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

  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-05-29 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for one of one kitchen reviewed for sanitation. The facility failed to ensure CK A and DM were holding cold foods below the danger zone temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit and below. The facility failed to ensure CK A checked food temperatures and recorded temperatures correctly. The facility failed to ensure CK A and DM periodically monitored throughout the meal service to ensure proper cold holding temperatures are maintained for the macaroni salad. The facility failed to ensure functioning of reach in refrigerator and temperature at 41 degrees Fahrenheit and below. This failure could place residents who were served from the kitchen at risk for consuming contaminated food, and/or developing foodborne illnesses. Findings included: Observation on 05/28/2025 at 10:54 AM, revealed CK A preparing lunch and placing deep stainless steel steam table pans of food on the warming table and checking…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-05-29 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide 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 4 of 8 residents (Resident #8, Resident #27, Resident #53, and Resident #57) reviewed for infection control. 1. During pericare, CNA J folded and reused a disposable wipe when cleaning the groin and penis for Resident #27. 2. MA G did not conduct hand hygiene after preparing medications and prior to administering the medications for Resident #53 and Resident #57. 3. LVN I failed to ensure supplies that were to be used on multiple residents was not placed on a dirty surface in a resident's room for Resident #8. These failures could place residents at risk of transmission of disease and infection. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #27's admission record, dated 05/29/2025, reflected a [AGE] year-old…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-05-29 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolated
    Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure personal privacy for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #8 and Resident #56) reviewed for privacy while receiving care. 1. The facility failed to ensure the privacy of Resident #56 by not closing the door or pulling the privacy curtain during administration of enteral formula through a PEG tube. 2. The facility failed to ensure the privacy of Resident #8 by not closing the blinds on the window or pulling the privacy curtain during wound care. This failure could place residents at risk of loss of privacy and dignity. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #56's admission record, dated 05/29/2025, reflected a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #56 had diagnoses which included: thrombocytopenia (a condition characterized by a low platelet count and may cause easy bruising and/or prolonged bleeding), aphasia (a language disorder that affects communication), dysphagia…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-05-29 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
    Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 1 (D/E Hall) medication room reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure expired medication and medical supplies were removed from D/E-halls medication storage room. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving an expired medication, not reaching the intended therapeutic dose, inaccurate results, and/or contamination from expired supplies. Findings included: During an observation on 05/29/2025 at 07:58 AM, with the ADON revealed a bottle of omeprazole 20mg with an expiration date of 01/2025, a bottle of omeprazole 20mg with an expiration date of 03/2025, 10 BioSign Flu A+B tests with an expiration date of 07/31/2024, a sterile CleanWipe foam swab with an expiration date of 11/2023, a gray top vacutainer (blood collection device for labs) with an expiration date of 05/31/2024,…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-04-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for one of one kitchen reviewed for food and nutrition services. The facility failed to ensure the food was safely stored in the freezer and the pantry. This failure could place residents at risk of being served food that could had been crossed-contaminated, frost bitten, and foodborne illness. Findings included: Dry pantry observation on 04/09/2024 at 8:55am revealed an undated plastic container of Fiber. Dry pantry observation on 04/09/2024 at 9:00am revealed an opened bag powered milk, exposed to open air, and not sealed. Refrigerator observation on 04/09/2024 at 8:59am revealed a box of mushrooms in the refrigerator, exposed to open air and not sealed. Kitchen observation on 04/09/2024 at 8:46am revealed a cell phone in a pink protective case sitting on the rolling cart next to the prep table , directly across from the kitchen entry doorway. Kitchen observation on 04/09/2024 at 8:51am revealed a cloudy,…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-11 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop 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 interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan with resident rights, that include measurable objectives and time frames to meet resident's mental and psychosocial needs for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #39) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to update Resident #39's care plan to reflect current needs for heel protectors to be worn at all times. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving the appropriate care and services to maintain the highest practical well-being. Findings included: Review of Resident #39's Face Sheet dated 04/10/2024 revealed a 56 Record review of Resident #80's face-sheet dated 04/09/2024 revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included: other skin changes (changes in your skin can be clues that there's an internal issue with your health), severe intellectual disabilities (a condition in which your brain doesn't develop properly or function normally),…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-11 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents unable to conduct activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for two of eight residents (Resident # 40 and Resident # 63) reviewed for quality of life. The facility failed to ensure Resident #40 and Resident #63's nails were cleaned. This failure could place residents at risk for poor hygiene, dignity issues, and decreased quality of life. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident # 40 Face Sheet dated 04/11/2024 reflected Resident #40 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of muscle weakness (lack of strength in muscles), mild intellectual disabilities (a condition that limits intelligence and disrupts abilities necessary for living independently), and age-related osteoporosis without current pathological fracture (reduce bone mass). Record review of Resident #40's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 02/26/2024, reflected resident was rarely/never…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-11 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    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 residents received care, consistent with professional standards of care to prevent development of pressure ulcers for one of three (Resident # 39) reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility failed to ensure Resident #39 received his physician ordered heel protectors at all times. This failure could place residents at risk for developing a pressure ulcer leading to pain, discomfort, and potential infections. Findings included: Review of Resident #39's Face Sheet dated 04/10/2024 revealed a 56 -year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included: other skin changes (changes in your skin can be clues that there's an internal issue with your health), severe intellectual disabilities (a condition in which your brain doesn't develop properly or function normally), and peripheral vascular disease (the reduce circulation of blood to a body part, other than the brain or heart, due to a narrowed or blocked blood…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an Infection Control Program designed to ensure hand hygiene procedures were followed by contract staff in the direct care of one of four residents (Resident # 80) reviewed for infection control in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure the Hospice Nurse LVN B sanitized or wash her hands after touching contaminated items while feeding of Resident #80. 2. The facility failed to ensure the Hospice Nurse did not touch Resident #80 tip of straw and side of Resident #80's mouth. These failures could place residents at risk of cross contamination which could result in physical illness. Findings include: Record review of Resident #80's face-sheet dated 04/09/2024 revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included: Alzheimer's disease (parts of the brain that control thought, memory, and language), diseases of lips (can make it difficult to eat, drink, or even smile. Cold sores cause by bacteria…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-03-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for one of one kitchen reviewed for sanitation. 1. The DSM failed to ensure all items in the kitchen were labeled, dated, and discarded prior to their expiration date. 2. The DSM failed to ensure all personnel food items were stored separate from resident food items. 3. The DM failed to properly sanitize the thermometer probe when taking the temperature of food items. Findings included: Observations of the reach-in refrigerator on 3/06/2023 from 9:13 a.m. - 9:24 a.m. revealed the following: At 9:13 a.m., the reach-in refrigerator contained 12 bags of yellow unidentifiable substance unlabeled and undated. At 9:15 a.m., the reach-in refrigerator contained five foam containers of unidentifiable substance unlabeled and undated. At 9:16 a.m., the reach-in refrigerator contained three small foam containers of unidentifiable substance unlabeled and undated. At 9:17 a.m., the reach-in refrigerator contained 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-03-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide 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 three of 24 residents (Residents #55, 57, and 76) and one of four medication carts reviewed for infection control. 1. Resident #55 scratched herself in the perineal area multiple times resulting in soiled hands and fingers, and she touched people and things in the common area without intervention from staff. 2. LVN A stored and locked her used scrub-top in the drawer of a medication cart that contains medications and treatment supplies. 3. LVN C assisted both Residents #57 and 76 with eating, using the same hand, and did not perform hand hygiene between them. These failures placed residents at risk of transmission of infectious diseases. Findings included: Review of the undated face sheet for Resident #55…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-03-08 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — pattern
    Make sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
    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, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public for 12 of 14 resident rooms (rooms for Residents ##3, 6, 12, 14, 15, 19, 35, 40, 42, 43, 50, 51, 52, 55, 64, 65, 66. 67, 72, 74, 75, and 81) reviewed for physical environment. The air conditioning units in rooms for Residents #3, 6, 12, 14, 15, 19, 35, 40, 42, 43, 50, 51, 52, 55, 64, 65, 74, 75, and 81 were covered with a black and grey substance, and the units in rooms for Residents #52, 64, 65, 66, and 67 were broken and/or not securely fastened to the wall. This failure placed residents at risk of respiratory illness, infection, and injury by accident. Findings included: Review of the undated face sheet for Resident #66 reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] and having diagnoses of intellectual disabilities and seasonal allergic rhinitis. Review of the undated face sheet for Resident #67 reflected 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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-03-08 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, 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 a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for one of eight residents (Resident #55) reviewed for care plans. Resident #55 scratched herself in the perineal area multiple times resulting in soiled hands and fingers, and she touched people and things in the common area without intervention from staff, and this was not included in a behavioral care plan. This failure placed residents at risk of not attaining their higest practicable well-being. Findings included: Review of the undated face sheet for Resident #55 reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and having diagnoses of pruritus (itchiness), chronic gingivitis, irritable bowel syndrome, slow transit…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-03-08 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    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 with pressure ulcers received the necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing for 1 of 3 residents (Residents #5) reviewed for pressure ulcers. 1. The facility failed to ensure the provider treatment plan for Resident #5 was implemented. 2. The facility did not provide wound care as ordered by the provider for Resident #5. These failures placed residents at risk of pain, worsening of wounds and wound infection. Findings included: Record review of Resident #5's Face Sheet dated 03/07/23 reflected Resident #5 was a [AGE] year-old male, and he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #5 had diagnoses of Dysphagia (difficult to swallow), Parkinsonism, Chronic pain, Deficiency of B and D vitamins, Allergic rhinitis due to pollen, Epilepsy, Constipation, Intellectual disabilities, Muscle Weakness, Need…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$45,778 in federal fines across 7 penalties.

  • $4,938 — penalty dated 2024-02-20
  • $4,938 — penalty dated 2024-02-12
  • $14,434 — penalty dated 2024-01-22
  • $10,882 — penalty dated 2023-12-26
  • $2,823 — penalty dated 2023-11-20
  • $2,470 — penalty dated 2023-11-13
  • $5,293 — penalty dated 2023-10-23

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 / managerTypeRoleSince
MURRAY, PATRICKIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
FRY, LIAMIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
MATTHEWS, STEVEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2010
OBRIEN, THOMASIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2010
PERRY, CHARLESIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2010
MCAVOY, SCOTTIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; TRUSTEE OF THE SNFsince 06/24/2023

CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 6 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.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

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

$7.6M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-49.8%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$3.3M
Related-party expense29% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 86%Medicare 1%Other / private 13%

About 86% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $3.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 29% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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

$373per resident / day
operating cost
$11,331per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$249per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in TX

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in Texas
$5,627/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$7,604/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,666/mo
Assisted living

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 675923. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-29, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next