Mabee Health Care Center
2208 N Loop 250 W, Midland, TX 79707 · Non profit - Corporation · 44 certified beds · (432) 699-3401 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)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (84%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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) | 2 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 improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 28.6% | 15.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.7% | 3.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.9% | 0.3% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.8% | 0.8% | 2.0% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 5.6% | 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 | 0.0% | 3.3% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 12.0% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.3% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.2% | 13.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 13.6% | 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 | 71.9% | 88.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.3% | 25.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.5% | 12.3% | 12.0% | 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.
64.8% 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 174 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 54.0% 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 76 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 0.32 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 52% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% 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 | 64.8%CMS range 56.5–71.6 | 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 | 10.9%CMS range 8.2–13.7 | 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 | 54.0% | 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 | 50.0% | 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 | 39.5% | 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 | 98.8% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final 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 | 7.5%CMS range 4.5–13.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.78 | 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 44 beds and averages 40.6 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.76 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.25 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.58 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.98 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.68 on weekdays — about the same on weekends as weekdays. RN hours go from 0.26 to 0.21 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 84% is well above 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2026-02-26 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to post daily information that included the facility name, census, and actual hours worked by registered nurses, licensed practical or licensed vocational nurses, certified nurse aides directly responsible for resident care per shift and the resident census for 3 days (02/24/2026, 02/25/2026, 02/26/2026) of 3 days observed during survey for staff posting. The facility failed to post the daily staffing information for 02/24/2026, 02/25/2026, and 02/25/2026. This failure could place all residents, their families, and facility visitors at risk of not having access to information regarding staffing data and the facility census.During an observation and record review on 02/24/2026, 2/25/2026 and 02/26/2026 revealed the facility's daily nursing posting was located behind closed doors at the nurses' station and failed to indicate the actual hours worked for each direct care staffing, the facility name, the total number and actual hours worked by the staff, and resident census. The posting was just a schedule that 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.
- Potential for harm · E2026-02-26 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure notices to residents were provided when changes in coverage were made to services covered by Medicare/Medicaid for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #9, Resident #47, and Resident #48) reviewed for resident rights.The facility failed to ensure Resident #9, Resident #47 and Resident #48 was given a Notice of Medicare NON-Coverage CMS form 10123 (NOMNC resident who is not covered on a Medicare Part A skilled nursing stay) and Beneficiary Notice CMS form 10055 (Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage) that inform them how to appeal when residents are discharged from skilled Medicare part A services prior to covered days being exhausted.This failure could place residents, or their representatives, at risk of not being fully informed about services covered by Medicare Part A and not being aware of changes to provided services.Findings include: Resident #9Record review of Resident #9's face sheet dated 02/25/2026, revealed she was admitted to the facility on [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 · E2026-02-26 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for Resident #20, Resident #31 and Resident #46 in that: The facility failed to ensure that the hot water temperatures in the sinks for 3 resident rooms did not exceed the maximum of 110 degrees Fahrenheit (F).The findings included: Record review of Resident 46's face sheet dated 02/26/2026 indicated she was admitted to facility on 02/10/2026 with diagnoses of muscle weakness and muscle spasms. She was [AGE] years of age. Record review of Resident #31's admission record dated 02/26/2026 indicated he was admitted to facility on 01/05/2023 with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease and muscle weakness. He was [AGE] years of age. Record review of Resident #31's MDS dated [DATE] indicated in part: BIMS = 15 indicating resident was cognitively intact. Record review of Resident #20's admission record dated 02/26/2026 indicated he was admitted to facility on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2026-02-26 · tag F0914 — patternProvide bedrooms that don't allow residents to see each other when privacy is needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure each room was designed or equipped to assure full visual privacy for 3 (Rooms C-8, S-8 and S-18) of 4 dual occupancy rooms reviewed for privacy in the facility. The facility failed to ensure that dual occupancy rooms were provided with ceiling suspended curtains, which extended around the bed, to provide total visual privacy. This failure could lead to a lack of privacy for residents, allow residents' private medical treatment to be observed by roommates or others, and lead to a decline in psychosocial well-being. Findings included: Observation on 02/24/2026 at 2:35 PM of resident rooms C-8, S-8 and S-18 revealed that each room had dual occupancy with an A and B bed in each. The rooms had a single ceiling to floor curtain that divided the center of the room but stopped approximately 24 inches from the wall. A beds had a side curtain each but they each had a gap of approximately 30 inches and were unable to allow beds to have total visual privacy. Interview on 02/25/2026 at 4:02 PM the Administrator said…
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 · D2026-02-26 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — isolatedPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the residents were free from chemical restraints not required to treat the residents' medical symptoms for 2 (Resident #2 and Resident #8) of 10 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's PRN Lorazepam (medication generally prescribed to treat symptoms of anxiety) was discontinued after 14 days or documented a rationale for the continued provision of the medication.The facility failed to ensure Resident #8's PRN Lorazepam was discontinued after 14 days or documented a rationale for the continued provision of the medication.This failure could place residents at risk for adverse reactions and negative side effects from the administration of medication and dependence on unnecessary medications. Findings included: Resident #2Record review of Resident #2's face-sheet dated 02/25/26 revealed [AGE] year-old female with admission date 08/31/2023.Record review of Resident #2's Quarterly MDS dated…
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 · D2026-02-26 · 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
Based on 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 of 1 (Scharbauer Cottage) of 2 medication cabinets located in the medication room reviewed for controlled substances and for storage of medications.The facility failed to ensure LVN C signed the Controlled Drugs-Audit Record form after counting and verifying that all controlled substances in the medication cabinet had been accounted for with the off- going nurse at the change of shift on 02/25/26.The failure could place residents at risk for not receiving the intended therapeutic response of prescribed medications and drug diversion of controlled substances. The findings include:In a record review and interview on 02/25/26 at 9:40 AM with LVN C, revealed the Controlled Drug-Count Record was not signed on 02/25/26, 6AM-2PM shift for the Nurse On. The Controlled Drug-Count Record for 02/25/26 2PM-10PM shift was signed on Nurse On,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an Infection Control program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection to include hand washing and enhanced precautions for 1 resident (Residents #34) of 5 reviewed for infection control in that:The facility failed to place an Enhanced Barrier Precautions sign outside of Resident #34's door on 02/24/26.This failure could affect the residents who reside at the facility, by placing them at risk for cross-contamination and the spread of infection.The findings were: Record review of Resident #34's face sheet dated 02/25/26 revealed a [AGE] year-old female with admission date 02/02/20 and re-admission date 02/20/26.Record review of Resident #34's Comprehensive MDS dated [DATE] noted there was no BIMS score since Resident #34 was rarely/never understood. Section K-Swallowing/Nutritional status noted Resident #34 had a feeding tube while a resident.In an observation on 02/24/26 at 10:19 AM,…
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 · F2024-12-05 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the facility's four of four kitchens. The facility failed to ensure milk was not used or discarded by the use by date in 2 of 4 kitchens. The rehabilitation kitchen drawer had an accumulation of food debris in the drawers. The juice reservoirs under the juice dispensers of 2 of 4 kitchens were not clean and beginning to have white mold growing in the bottom. The rehabilitation kitchen refrigerator had fruits that were fuzzy with mold. Food was unlabeled in 2 of 4 kitchens. The handwashing sinks did not have trash cans that did not require staff to touch them in order to prevent re-contamination of hands in 2 of 4 hands. Dishes were stored face up in 1 of 4 kitchens. Hand hygiene was not performed when indicated by staff in 1 of 4 kitchens. Dirty rags were not kept separate from clean rags in 1 of 4 kitchens. These failures could affect 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-12-05 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop 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 time frames to meet, attain, and/or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 3 of 12 residents (Residents #6, #14, and #22) reviewed for care plans in that: Resident #6 did not have a care plan in place for fall risk. Resident #14 did not have a care plan in place for dehydration or hand rolls. Resident #22 did not have a comprehensive care plan. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk of not receiving individualized care and services to meet their needs. The findings included the following: Review of Resident #6's Resident Face Sheet, dated 12/5/24, revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified dementia, and Diabetes Mellitus with Diabetic Neuropathy (nerve damage causing people to not feel…
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 · E2024-12-05 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, included locked secured medications, the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable for 2 of 3 medication carts (Rehab hall and secured unit medication carts), 1 of 2 medication rooms (Secured unit medication room) and to maintain locked medication cabinets for 4 of 60 rooms (Residents #9, #10, #28, #94) reviewed for medication storage. The medication cart used for the secured unit had an insulin pen that had been opened and placed into use but had no open date on it. The medication cart used for the rehab hall had 2 insulin vials that had been opened and placed into use but had no open dates on them. The secured unit medication room had opened Tuberculin (TB) vial that had expired. (Tuberculin is used to test for Tuberculosis in the body, Tuberculosis is a contagious…
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 · E2023-11-16 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her 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 observation and interview the facility failed treat each resident with respect and dignity in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for two of five residents (Residents #31, #32) and two unsampled residents (Residents #3 and #10) reviewed for treatment with respect and dignity. CNA E was on her cell phone and tapped her fingers on Resident # 32's wheelchair arm. CNAF stood while feeding Resident #31 and #10. This failure placed residents at risk of feeling embarrassed, infantilized, dehumanized, or stigmatized due to their need for assisted dining. Findings included: Review of Resident #31's Face Sheet, dated 11/15/23, revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses included diabetes, weight loss. Review of Resident #31's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed (an 11/9/23 quarterly MDS assessment was in progress): He had long- and short-term memory…
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 · E2023-11-16 · tag F0637 — patternAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
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 complete a comprehensive assessment within 14 days after a significant change in the physical condition for 3 of 9 residents (Residents #19, #31 and #32) whose records were reviewed for assessments after significant change. The facility failed to complete a comprehensive MDS assessment after Resident #19, Resident #31 and Resident #32 developed pressure ulcers. These failures placed residents at risk of having assessments that do not reflect significant changes in their conditions and need for additional care/treatment. The findings included: Review of Resident #19's Face Sheet, dated 11/16/23, revealed he was an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including pulmonary embolism, acute kidney failure, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, high blood pressure, anemia, and depression. Review of Resident #19's most recent MDS Assessment, dated 10/11/23 revealed: He scored a 3 on his mental status…
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 before2023-11-16 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop 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 time frames to meet, attain, and/or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 3 of 9 residents (Residents #17, #19, and #32) reviewed for care plans in that: Resident #17 did not have a care plan in place for fall risk. Resident #19 did not have a care plan in place for skin integrity risk, bipolar disorder, or psychotropic medication use. Resident #32 did not have a care plan in place for an indwelling catheter. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk of not receiving individualized care and services to meet their needs. The findings included the following: Review of Resident #17's Face Sheet, dated 11/16/23, revealed he was an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, Lewy Body dementia, high blood…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-16 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure residents who were incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible for 1 of 3 residents (Residents #18) reviewed for indwelling catheters. The facility failed to ensure Resident #18's indwelling catheter was secured to prevent pulling or tugging. The facility failed to ensure CNA B performed urinary catheter care for Resident #18 during incontinent care. These failures could place residents at risk for discomfort, urethral trauma and urinary tract infections. Findings included: Record review of Resident #18's face sheet dated 11/15/2023 indicated he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of retention of urine and Alzheimer's disease. He was [AGE] years of age. Record review of Resident #18's physician order report for the month of November 2023 indicated in part: Foley catheter care (Q = every) shift. Start 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.
“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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| MANOR PARK, INC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/30/2004 |
| BALLARD, TINA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/02/2018 |
| NELSON, STEPHEN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2021 |
| HOLBROOKS, MELISSA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2021 |
| ATKINS, JEFFREY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/01/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 5 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
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 676015. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-26, 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.