Christian Care Communities and Services Mesquite
1000 Wiggins Parkway, Mesquite, TX 75150 · Non profit - Corporation · 180 certified beds · (972) 686-3000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors recorded 4 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $28,941 in federal fines (most recent 2025-08-13)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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 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 | 18.9% | 15.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.9% | 3.0% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse 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 | 0.0% | 2.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.5% | 3.3% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 25.5% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.2% | 18.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.7% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.9% | 13.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.0% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.1% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.1% | 25.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.7% | 12.3% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.49 | 2.17 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.82 | 2.06 | 1.80 | better |
* 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.
69.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 181 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 59.8% 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 92 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 0.52 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 82% 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.
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 | 69.5%CMS range 61.1–76.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 14.2%CMS range 11.4–19.0 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 59.8% | 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 | 72.8% | 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 | 46.7% | 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 | 95.9% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 98.2% | 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 | 0.7% | 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 | 0.7% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.9%CMS range 3.9–11.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.02 | 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 180 beds and averages 74.1 residents a day — about 41% occupied, or roughly 106 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 3.99 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.75 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.17 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 3.82 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.07 on weekdays — 6% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.80 to 0.65 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-08-13 · 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 observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents. Resident #1 walked out of the facility unattended with a wander guard on and was missing for approximately 10 - 20 minutes on 05/01/2025.The noncompliance was identified as a PNC. The IJ began on 05/01/2025 and ended on 05/02/2025. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. This failure could place residents at risk for serious injury or death. Findings Include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 08/12/2025 revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident discharged to another from facility on 05/03/2025. Admitting diagnosis was Metabolic Encephalopathy (a condition where brain's dysfunction occurs due to issues with the body's metabolism, which can manifest confusion, impaired thinking, or even coma); Cerebral Infarction, Unspecified (a stroke where…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-06-18 · 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 the residents received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for one resident (Resident #1) of eight residents reviewed for assistive devices and supervision. - The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received adequate supervision and care in accordance with professional standards when the resident complained of pain and MA B did not notify the nurse promptly. MA B transferred Resident #1 out of bed using a sit to stand lift without assistance and notified the nurse of Resident #1's pain afterwards. Resident #1 received an X-ray that was positive for an acute spiral fracture of her left femur. The non-compliance was identified as past non-compliance (PNC). The Administrator and DON were notified of the PNC on 6/18/25 at 1:00 PM. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 6/12/25 and ended on 6/16/25. The facility had corrected the non-compliance before the state's investigation began. This failure placed residents…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2024-12-18 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents are free of any significant medication errors for one (Resident #1) of four residents reviewed for medication errors. The facility failed to ensure Eliquis (anticoagulant commonly known as a blood thinner medication) was administered to Resident #1 as ordered from 08/26/2024 to 09/26/2024 (30 days). The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance (PNC). The IJ began on 08/26/2024 and ended on 10/19/2024. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the state's investigation began. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving medications as ordered by their physician or per manufacturer's directions. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's PPS MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm), displaced intertrochanteric fracture of the left femur (fractured left hip), 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-12-18 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (the process of receiving and interpreting prescriber's orders and to provide procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administration of all drugs) to meet the needs of each resident for one (Resident #1) of four residents reviewed for pharmaceutical services. The facility failed to ensure the hospital discharge order to continue Eliquis (anticoagulant commonly known as a blood thinner medication) was accurately transcribed and administered to Resident #1 as ordered from 8/26/2024 to 9/26/2024 (30 days). The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance (PNC). The IJ began on 8/26/2024 and ended on 10/19/2024. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the state's investigation began. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving medications as ordered by their physician or per manufacturer's directions. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's PPS…
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 · D2025-11-10 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for reasonable accommodations.The facility failed to provide a bed extension to accommodate resident preferences.This failure could place residents at risk of not being able to meet their needs.Findings included:During a record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 11/10/25, revealed an [AGE] year-old man admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of encephalopathy (disturbance of brain function), type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications (a condition where high blood sugar levels occur because the body's cells don't respond properly to insulin, but without the development of other health problems like nerve damage or heart disease), vascular dementia (a decline…
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 · D2025-08-16 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that medications were secure and inaccessible to unauthorized staff and residents for two (one medication cart for Hall 200 and one medication cart for Hall Burgundy on the rehab unit) of five medication carts reviewed for medication storage. 1. The facility failed to ensure medication supplies were all stored in locked compartments and permit only authorized personnel to have keys, when CMA A's one medication cart for Hall 200 were left unlocked and unattended by CMA A. 2. The facility failed to ensure medication supplies were all stored in locked compartments and permit only authorized personnel to have keys when LVN B's one medication cart for Hall Burgundy for Rehab and was left unlocked and unattended by LVN B. This failure could result in resident access and ingestion of medications leading to a risk for harm and possible drug diversion.Findings included: An observation on 08/16/2025 at 9:14 a.m. revealed MA A's one…
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 · D2025-08-13 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, the facility must maintain medical records on each resident that are complete; accurately documented; readily accessible; and systematically organized for 1 (Resident #1) of 2 for accuracy of records. The facility failed to accurately document an incident of elopement in progress notes that occurred r/t Resident #1. The failure can affect residents by putting them at risk of preventing further elopements r/t the lack of accurate documentation of incident. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 08/12/2025 revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident discharged to another from facility on 05/03/2025. Admitting diagnosis was Metabolic Encephalopathy (a condition where brain's dysfunction occurs due to issues with the body's metabolism, which can manifest confusion, impaired thinking, or even coma); Cerebral…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-03-13 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that ensured drugs and biologicals were accurately acquired, received, dispensed, and administered) to meet the needs of each resident for one (2100 hall medication room) of two medication rooms reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure expired medication administration supplies were removed from the east side medication room. These failures could place residents at risk for infection and having possible adverse effects. Findings included: In an observation and interview on [DATE] at 9:37 a.m., expired supplies were found stored on shelves in the 2100 hall medication room. Expired supplies observed included one 100 count box of 5mL 22gauge x 1.5inch syringes with an expiration date of [DATE] and one 100 count box of 3mL 23gauge x 1inch syringes with an expiration date of [DATE]. RN A was present during the observation and stated the syringes were expired, and the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-13 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on 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 the facility's only kitchen reviewed for food safety. 1. The facility failed to remove molded fruits. 2. The facility failed to ensure dented cans were placed in a separate storage area. These failures could place residents at risk for food-borne illness and cross contamination. Findings Include: Observation of walk-in refrigerator on 03/11/2025 at 9:27 a.m., revealed the following: -1 16oz bag of grapes dated 03/07/2025 contained molded grapes. -1 16oz container of strawberries dated 03/07/2025 contained molded strawberries. -2 6oz containers of raspberries dated 02/28/2025 contained molded raspberries. Observation of dry storage on 03/11/2025 at 9:35 a.m., revealed the following: -1 3lbs can of cream of chicken dated 02/11/2027 was dented twice on the top left. -1 6lbs can of tapioca pudding dated 02/05/2028 was dented on top right. In an interview with [NAME] B on 03/11/2025 at 11:25 a.m., she…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-02-19 · tag F0839 — patternEmploy staff that are licensed, certified, or registered in accordance with state laws.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure professional staff were licensed, certified or registered in accordance with applicable state laws for one (ADON) of four licensed nursing staff reviewed for staff qualifications. The facility failed to ensure the ADON's Nursing license was not expired. The past noncompliance began on [DATE] and ended on [DATE]. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. This failure could place residents at risk for receiving nursing services by an unlicensed nurse. Findings included: During an interview, on [DATE] at 2:30 pm, the HR Manager stated the staff licenses were checked upon hire. She stated when staff came in for background checks, all the other checks were completed. She stated the facility noted the expiration date of the license or certification and let the staff know when the license would expire, and at that point it was the employees' responsibility. She stated effective [DATE] the responsibility was given to…
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 · D2024-09-19 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 immediately report an allegation of abuse to HHSC for one (Resident #3) of five residents reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to report an allegation of abuse as required when Resident #3's family member reported to the facility that Resident #3 had been abused by PT B. This failure could place residents at risk for unreported allegations of abuse. Findings included: Record review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #3 was admitted on [DATE], was a [AGE] year old female, and her diagnoses in part included Hypertension (elevated blood pressure), Obstructive Uropathy (occurs when urine cannot drain through the urinary tract), Depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), Asthma (a chronic disease that affects the airways of the lungs), Open Wound, Fibromyalgia (pain in muscle and joints throughout the body), Muscle Weakness, Other Reduced Mobility, and Morbid Obesity. The MDS…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-02-08 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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 all assistive devices were maintained and free of hazards for five (Residents #10, #12, #53, #69, and #183) of eighteen residents reviewed for essential equipment. The facility failed to properly maintain wheelchairs for Residents #10, #12, #53, #69, and #183. This failure could place residents at risk for equipment that is in unsafe operating condition, which could cause injury. Findings included: Review of Resident #10's quarterly MDS assessment , dated 1/16/24, reflected she was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Dementia (confusion and forgetfulness), generalized weakness, and heart failure (heart weakness). Resident #10 had a BIMS score of 99 indicating she was severely cognitively impaired and unable to make decisions for herself. Further review of section GG revealed she was dependent for mobility use of a wheelchair. Review of the Resident #10's plan of care dated 01/16/24 with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-02-08 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the facility's only kitchen, reviewed for food storage, labeling, dating, and kitchen sanitation. 1. The facility failed to ensure food in the facility's refrigerator, was labeled and dated according to guidelines. 2. The facility failed to ensure food in the facility's refrigerator, was not exposed from air-borne contaminants. 3. The facility failed to dispose of expired foods items in the refrigerator and freezer. These failures could place residents who receive food prepared in the facility's kitchen at an increased risk of exposure to food-borne illnesses. Findings included: Observation of the Refrigerator on 2/6/24 at 9:20 AM revealed the following: On back wall, bottom row had peeled potatoes inside a container filled with water, no date. On back wall, top shelf had brown liquid substance in a pitcher covered, no date. On back wall, middle shelf had opened salad mix, no date.…
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 · D2024-02-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, 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 one (Residents #182) of eight residents reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure Occupational Therapist G properly donned and doffed PPE by putting on an isolation gown before entering Resident #182's contact isolation room; additionally, when Occupational Therapist G left the resident's room, she took her gown off in the hallway then went back into Resident 182's room to dispose of the gown. Then afterwards she went to two other resident's rooms. This failure could place residents at risk of cross contamination of highly infectious diseases, which could lead to the residents experiencing respiratory distress, fevers, muscle aches, vomiting and diarrhea and resulting in health decline 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 · E2024-02-08 · tag F0582 — patternGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
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 inform each resident periodically during the resident's stay, of services available in the facility and charges for those services, including services not covered under Medicare/Medicaid and must inform the resident in writing at least 60 days prior to implemention of the change for one (Resident #185) of eight residents reviewed for [NAME] Services. The facility failed to develop, implement, and practice appropriate billing practices, subsequently Resident #185's room and board fees increased to $225.00 per day after his managed care insurance coverage ended on 12/24/22. The facility failed to notify Resident #185's RP about the increase in the resident's room and board fees on 12/24/22 to $225.00 per day; inadvertently, the facility waited seven months after the resident admitted then added the additional accumulated charges to his July 2023 and August 2023 billing statements. These failures could place residents at risk of an accelerated depletion…
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
$28,941 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $14,508 — penalty dated 2025-08-13
- $14,433 — penalty dated 2024-12-18
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 BONCREST RESOURCE GROUP — 5 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 | 2.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| MATHENY, CYNTHIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2024 |
| SANDERSON, CLARK | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/01/2024 |
| CCC MESQUITE MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2024 |
| MESQUITE SENIOR CARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2024 |
| OAKDALE SENIORS ALLIANCE, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2024 |
| BAKER, AMELIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/17/2024 |
| BECK, KARI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2024 |
| CORRIGAN, FRANK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/17/2024 |
| GERMAN, TODD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2024 |
| HOLT, ERIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/17/2024 |
| JOHNSON, MATTHEW | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/17/2024 |
| KEETON, WENDY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/17/2024 |
| KISSLING, MONICA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/17/2024 |
| LANGSTON, KARLA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/03/2025 |
| MCBEAN, PATRICIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/17/2024 |
| MCMULLAN, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/17/2024 |
| OWENS, ANGELA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/17/2024 |
| ROSENBAUM, MAURICE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/17/2024 |
| THOMPSON, JOYCE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2024 |
| TROMPLER, KELLY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/17/2024 |
| BONCREST RESOURCE GROUP INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 36 rows in the source record cover these 21 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.
4 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 455617. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-13, 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.