Marshall Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation Center

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

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.

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.

55.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 73 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 51.5% 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 66 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 38% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 179 beds and averages 94.7 residents a day — about 53% occupied, or roughly 84 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.85 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.29 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.37 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 3.36 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.05 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.31 to 0.23 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% 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.

26 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 16 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · D2026-06-24 · tag F0635 — isolated
  Provide doctor's orders for the resident's immediate care at the time the resident was admitted.
  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 obtain physician orders for the resident's' immediate care for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for admission physician orders. 1.The facility failed to obtain physician orders for the immediate care of Resident #1's surgical wound and pressure ulcer. These failures could affect residents who were admitted or readmitted to the facility by placing them at risk for not receiving the appropriate care, medication, and treatment services. Findings included: 1.Record review of an undated face sheet revealed Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of gangrene of wound (the death of body tissue caused by a loss of blood supply or a severe bacterial infection), Diabetes type II (a chronic metabolic condition where the body resists insulin or cannot produce enough of it), and osteomyelitis (a serious infection and inflammation of the bone, primarily caused by bacteria or fungi). Record reviews of the…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-05-07 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — pattern
  Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
  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 provide residents with limited range of motion appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and to prevent further decrease in range of motion for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for range of motion. (Resident #38 and Resident #65) 1. The facility failed to provide restorative therapy for limited range of motion for Resident #38 as recommended by occupation therapy on 04/22/25. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #65 wore a left upper extremity splint (is a medical device that stabilizes a part of your body and holds it in place) per the facility's range of motion/contracture (is a permanent shortening or stiffening of a muscle, tendon, or joint, leading to a loss of mobility and range of motion) log on 5/5/25, 5/6/25, and 5/7/25. These failures could place residents who had contractures at risk of not attaining/or maintaining their highest level of physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings included: 1.…

  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 · Ecited before2025-05-07 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 19 residents (Resident # 81 and Resident #89) and 1 of 1 Laundry room reviewed for infection control practices. 1.The facility failed to ensure CNA O changed her gloves or sanitized her hands after performing incontinent care and applying a clean brief for Resident #81. She touched a clean brief with her dirty gloves, and she touched the resident's pants with dirty gloves. 2.The facility failed to ensure Resident #89 was placed on contact isolation (implemented to prevent the spread of germs that are transmitted through direct or indirect contact with a person or objects they have touched) after her urinalysis with culture and sensitivity (UA examines urine for physical and chemical characteristics, while…

  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 · Dcited before2025-05-07 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
  Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for 1 of 19 residents (Resident #76) reviewed for reasonable accommodations. The facility failed to ensure Resident #76 had a comfortable mattress. This failure could place residents at risk of a diminished quality of life due to an environment that is uncomfortable. Findings included: Record review of Resident #76's face sheet dated 5/7/25 indicated Resident #76 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #76 had diagnoses including cerebral infarction (occurs when blood flow to the brain is blocked, leading to tissue damage or death), pain, insomnia (is a sleep disorder characterized by difficulty falling asleep, staying asleep, or waking up too early, causing daytime impairments), type 2 diabetes (is a chronic condition that happens when you have persistently high…

  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 · D2025-05-07 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received care, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent pressure ulcers based on the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 5 Residents (Resident #9) whose records were reviewed for skin integrity. The facility failed to ensure Resident #9's pressure-relieving mattress (is designed to distribute the patient's body weight over a broad surface area and help prevent skin breakdown) was on the correct settings. This failure could place residents at risk for developing pressure ulcers and could contribute to developing avoidable pressure ulcers. Findings included: Record review of Resident #9's face sheet dated 05/07/25 indicated a 97-years-old female initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #9 had diagnoses including pressure ulcer of sacral region stage 2 (stage 2 pressure injuries are opened. The skin breaks open, wear away, or forms an ulcer, which is usually tender ad painful), contracture…

  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 · D2025-05-07 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
  Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
  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 review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with urinary incontinence, based on the resident's comprehensive assessment, received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections (UTI) for 1 of 4 residents (Residents #81) reviewed for urinary catheters. The facility failed to ensure Resident #81's indwelling urinary catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) was secured by an anchor device (used to secure an indwelling urinary catheter). The facility failed to ensure CNA O performed proper catheter care to Resident #81. These failures could place residents at risk for indwelling urinary catheter dislodgement, urethral (empties urine from the bladder and out of the body) damage, pain, and urinary tract infections. Findings included: Record review of Resident #81's face sheet dated 05/07/25 indicated a 94-years-old male initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #81 had diagnoses including: heart failure, unspecified…

  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 · D2025-05-07 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolated
  Ensure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to act upon the recommendations of the pharmacist report of irregularities and to ensure the attending physician documented in the resident's medical record that the identified irregularity has been reviewed and what, if any, action has been taken to address it in response to the pharmacist report for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #42 and Resident #89) reviewed for (MRR) Medication Regimen Review. 1. The facility failed to ensure a proper rationale was given for not following the pharmacy consultant's recommendation to discontinue Resident #42's Seroquel (an antipsychotic medication that treats several kinds of mental health conditions including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) medication. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #89's Medication Regimen Review dated 4/28/25, had a detailed rationale for not implementing the pharmacist's recommendations. These failures could place residents at risk from maintaining their highest practicable level of…

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

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-05-07 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolated
  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, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the facility's only kitchen reviewed for food safety requirements. The facility failed to ensure the CNA Class Instructor did not walk into the kitchen without a hairnet during lunch service on 05/06/25. This failure could place residents at risk of foodborne illness and food contamination. Findings included: During an observation and interview on 05/06/25 at 11:56AM the CNA Class Instructor walked into the kitchen. She was not wearing a hairnet. The kitchen staff had the food out on the steam table and were plating the food for lunch. When questioned if she was wearing a hairnet she said, I'm just giving this sticky note to her. She pointed to one of the cooks on the serving line. She then handed the note to a dietary staff on the serving line next to the steam table and then walked out of the kitchen. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 01:35 PM, the Dietary Manager said she expected all staff…

  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 · D2025-05-07 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — isolated
  Implement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, and record review, the facility failed to promote antibiotic stewardship by ensuring the appropriate use of antibiotic therapy and providing written rationale, by the provider, when an antibiotic was used despite criteria, to determine the appropriate the use of an antibiotic for 1 of 5 residents reviewed antibiotic use. (Resident #31) The facility failed to ensure Resident #31 did not receive Cephalexin (is a cephalosporin antibiotic used to treat a variety of bacterial infections) for prophylactic antibiotic use. The facility failed to ensure Resident #31's Cephalexin, ordered prophylactically, was discontinued after he was started on Cefdinir (is a cephalosporin antibiotic used to treat a variety of bacterial infections) for an active UTI. These failures could place residents receiving antibiotics at risk for unnecessary antibiotic use, inappropriate antibiotic use, and increased antibiotic-resistant infections. Findings included: Record review of Resident #31's face sheet dated 5/5/25…

  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 · D2025-04-15 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 did not experience physical abuse by Resident #2 on 4/5/25. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The noncompliance began on 4/5/25 and ended on 4/6/25. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began on 4/15/25. This failure could place residents at risk for emotional distress and further abuse. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 4/15/25 indicated Resident #1 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy (is a change in how your brain works due to an underlying condition), altered mental status, and legal blindness. Record review of Resident #1's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1 was rarely/never understood and rarely/never had the…

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

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance

“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.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to CARING HEALTHCARE GROUP — 14 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 →

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

The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

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

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