Mansfield Medical Lodge
301 N Miller Rd, Mansfield, TX 76063 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 118 certified beds · (817) 276-4800 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- 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
- the CMS record shows $6,032 in federal fines (most recent 2024-09-25)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 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 whose need for help with daily activities increased | 9.4% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 3.0% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| 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 | 0.0% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 9.8% | 2.4% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.7% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.8% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.3% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.1% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 0.7% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 0.0% | 9.6% | 17.1% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.2% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 37.4% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.5% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.51 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.72 | 2.06 | 1.80 | 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.
§ 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.
39.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 112 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 44.7% 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 38 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 1.00 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 97% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 39.2%CMS range 30.9–48.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 13.4%CMS range 9.4–18.5 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 44.7% | 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 | 34.2% | 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 | 36.8% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 12.1%CMS range 8.2–16.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.62 | 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 118 beds and averages 94.6 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 23 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.17 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.59 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.81 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.80 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.31 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.72 to 0.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 47% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-12-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 observations, 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 safety. 1. The facility failed to seal opened items in plastic bags in the dry pantry area on 09/23/25.2. The facility failed to seal opened items in plastic bags in the refrigerator area on 09/23/25.3. The facility failed to seal opened items in plastic bags and boxes in the freezer area on 09/23/25.4. The facility failed to ensure to have a use by date on items in zip loc bags in the freezer area on 09/23/25.5. The facility failed to ensure the dented can in the dry storage area with the other canned food were removed from the shelf on 09/23/25.These deficient practices could affect residents who received meals and/or snacks from the facility's only kitchen by placing them at risk for cross-contamination and other food-borne illnesses.Findings included:Observation of the facility's kitchen dry pantry, refrigerator, and freezer areas on 09/23/25 beginning at…
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 · E2025-12-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, 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 two (Resident #38 and Resident #51) of five residents, reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure CNA B wore a PPE gown and performed hand hygiene during care for Resident #51.2. The facility failed to ensure CNA C performed hand hygiene during incontinence care for Resident #38 This failure placed residents at risk for healthcare associated cross contamination and infections.Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #51's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 08/14/25, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her cognitive skills were intact. The resident had diagnoses including neurogenic bladder (misfunctioning bladder) with a supra-pubic catheter…
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 · D2025-12-11 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
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 each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 5 residents (Residents #93) reviewed for accident hazards. CNA D did not ensure Resident #93, who required 1:1 meal assistance, was positioned correctly while eating. This failure could place residents at risk for aspiration and choking related to eating in an improper position.The findings included: Record review of Resident #93's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 09/04/25, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE]. His BIMs score was 99. He was sometimes understood and sometimes able to make himself understood. His diagnoses included aphasia (aphasia impairs the expression and understanding of language, as well as reading and writing), Parkinson's disease, stroke, and hemiplegia, seizure disorder, difficulty swallowing, and respiratory failure. The resident required supervision to eat. The resident required…
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 F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — patternProvide 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 observations, interviews and records review, the facility failed to ensure residents with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for two (Resident #1 and Resident #2) of five residents reviewed for quality of care. 1. The facility failed to follow physician's order to cover Resident #1's wound with a dry dressing as needed for dislodgement of dressing on 06/03/25. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's had a low air loss mattress pump with the correct settings for appropriate pressure redistribution on 06/03/25. 3. The facility failed to provide wound care to Resident #2's sacral wound on 05/24/25, 05/25/25, 05/31/25 and 06/01/25. 4. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 had a functioning low air loss mattress available to use to promote healing of her sacral wound on 06/03/25 and 06/04/25. These failures placed residents at risk of developing…
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 that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for one (Resident #2) of five residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's comprehensive care plan addressed a stage three sacral wound and pacemaker interventions. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving inadequate interventions not individualized to their health care needs. Findings included: Record review of Resident #2's Face Sheet dated 06/04/25 reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #2's active diagnoses included mechanical complication of internal right knee prosthesis, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), morbid obesity, neuropathy (nerve damage that can lead to pain, weakness,…
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 · D2024-09-25 · tag F0622 — isolatedNot transfer or discharge a resident without an adequate reason; and must provide documentation and convey specific information when a resident is transferred or discharged.
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 permit each resident to remain in the facility, and not transfer or discharge the resident from the facility unless the resident failed, after reasonable and appropriate notice, to pay for a stay at the facility for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for transfer and discharged rights. The BOM failed to submit Resident #1's Long Term (Medicaid) application and provided bank statements when she and her family expressed interest in applying for Medicaid prior to her discharge from the facility on 09/12/24. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not being able to remain at the facility, resulting in violation of their rights. The findings include: Record review of Resident #1's, undated, face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE], Resident #1 had diagnoses which included muscle wasting and atrophy, cognitive communication deficit, dysphagia, type 2 diabetes mellitus with hypoglycemia,…
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 · D2024-09-25 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representative (s) of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing and in a language and manner they understood and failed to send a copy of the notice to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for one of four residents (Resident #1) and one of one month (August 2024) reviewed for transfer and discharge. 1. The facility failed to send a transfer or discharge notice in writing to the facility's Ombudsman as soon as practicable when Resident #1 was discharged home on [DATE]. 2. The facility failed to ensure the facility's Ombudsman was notified, at least 30 days in advance of the discharge, or as soon as practicable before transfer or discharge for all discharges during the month of August 2024. These failures could place residents at risk of being discharged and not having access to available advocacy services, discharge/transfer options, and the appeal processes.…
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 · Fcited before2024-08-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation. The facility failed to ensure food was properly stored (moldy food in the fridge, food exposed to air, food on the floor) in the facility's kitchen. This failure could place residents at risk for food-borne illness. Findings Included: Observation of the facility's refrigerator on 08/06/24 beginning at 8:55 AM revealed: - 1 tomato with a black spot and 1 withered tomato; - 7 withered strawberries and 1 strawberry with a brownish green spots; - 5 green bell peppers with black spots; - 1 sweet potato with fuzzy green and white spots; and - 1 frozen bag of mixed berries thawing on top of a box on the second shelf from the top. Observation of the facility's dry storage on 08/06/24 beginning at 9:18 AM revealed: -1 container of ground cinnamon open and exposed to air; - 1 container of onion powder with the expiration date of May 9th (year was missing); 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 before2024-08-08 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to 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 4 nurses' medication carts (medication cart on 200 hall) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to discard expired glucometer control solution (used to test and calibrate the glucometer machines) from 200 hall medication cart. This failure placed the residents at risk of incorrect labeling of drugs and biologicals. Findings included. During an observation and interview on [DATE] at 10:15 AM, RN B identified the 200 hall nurse's medication cart. The cart contained a box of control solutions used to calibrate two glucometers which were also stored in the cart. No other control solutions were found within the cart. The box of control solutions reflected an expiration date of [DATE]. No open date was noted on the box. RN B…
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 · D2023-05-19 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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 fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feedings for one (Resident #14) of eight residents reviewed for enteral nutrition, in that: The facility failed to schedule a gastroenterologist consult for removal of g-tube (feeding method to deliver formula through feeding tube) for Resident #14 according to physician orders. This failure could place residents at risk for adverse reactions, health complications, and a decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #14's Face Sheet, dated 05/19/23, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident had diagnoses that included dysphagia (swallowing difficulties) following cerebral infarction (stroke). Record review of Resident #14's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 05/01/23, revealed a BIMS score of 14 which indicated the resident's cognition…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-05-19 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to 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 1 (Resident #71) of 4 residents reviewed for pharmaceutical services. RN A failed to follow the facility policy for administering medication through gravity when administering medications via Resident #71's g-tube. These failures could put residents who received medications via g-tube at risk for aspiration. Findings included: Review of Resident #71's MDS assessment, dated 03/26/23, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The assessment reflected Resident #71 had severely impaired cognition and had diagnoses which included unspecified severe protein-calorie malnutrition and on peg tube for nutritional approach. Review of Resident #71's May 2023 Physician Orders reflected there were no orders for medication administration…
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 · D2023-05-19 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, 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 three (Hall 100, 200 and 400 Medication Cart) of four medication carts and one refrigerator reviewed for pharmacy services. 1. The facility failed to ensure expired medications in nurse medication carts for Hall 100, 200, 400 and refrigerator were removed and destroyed. 2. The facility failed to ensure insulin were dated with opening dates. The failure placed residents at risk of receiving medications that were ineffective due to having expired medications on the cart, in the refrigerator and due to not putting opening date on insulin pens/vials. Findings included: 1. Observation on 05/18/23 at 4:22 PM of the nurse's medication cart used for the 100 Hall with LVN C revealed two insulin vials of glargine 100 unit/ml with an opening date of 03/30/23 and 03/23/23 that were opened and partially used. 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.
“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
$6,032 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $6,032 — penalty dated 2024-09-25
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PRIORITY MANAGEMENT — 38 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 37 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DECATUR HOSPITAL AUTHORITY | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/01/2014 |
| CARETRUST REIT INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2014 |
| CTR PARTNERSHIP LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2014 |
| SCROGGINS, BRIAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/03/2014 |
| PMG OPCO - MANSFIELD LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/18/2025 |
| TYNER, JONATHAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2021 |
| BAUDER, WILLIAM | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/15/2025 |
| BOULWARE, DOUGLAS | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/18/2025 |
| BOULWARE, STEVEN | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/15/2025 |
| BRIDGEPOINTE FINANICAL SERVICES, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2014 |
| INNOVATIVE NURSE CONSULTING, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2014 |
| PRIORITY MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2014 |
| PROGRESSIVE REHAB SOLUTIONS, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 13 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
8 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 676143. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-11, 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.