Carrara
4501 Tradition Trail, Plano, TX 75093 · For profit - Corporation · 112 certified beds · (469) 969-0866 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding 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
- the CMS record shows $10,036 in federal fines (most recent 2024-04-05)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 7.4% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.5% | 3.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 0.3% | 0.9% | typical for the 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 | 1.9% | 2.4% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.7% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.6% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.7% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 9.0% | 3.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 4.0% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.8% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.6% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
‡ 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.
48.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 182 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 67.7% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 65 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 0.46 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 77% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% 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 | 48.4%CMS range 41.1–57.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.9%CMS range 10.0–15.4 | 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 | 67.7% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 63.1% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 36.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.9% | 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 | 6.7%CMS range 3.9–10.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.07 | 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 112 beds and averages 99.6 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 12 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.70 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.33 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.12 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 3.32 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.86 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.36 to 0.26 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-04-05 · 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, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible and that residents received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for one (Resident #79) resident of three residents reviewed for elopement. RN A on 07/30/23 failed to report to the Administrator (at that time), the DON (at the time) or communicate to oncoming nursing staff when Resident #79 became agitated and stated he was going to leave the facility. On 08/02/23 Resident #79 became agitated and frustrated and told LVN B he was leaving the facility. LVN B redirected him and did not provide adequate supervision to prevent him from eloping from the facility on 08/02/23. Resident #79 was able to leave the building without staff being aware that he left the building on 08/02/23 sometime after 4:00 p.m. and was later found by the police approximately three miles from the facility. It was determined these failures placed Resident #79 in an Immediate…
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 · D2026-06-25 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
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 coordinate assessments with the PASRR program for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #55) reviewed for PASRR assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident #55 was referred to the appropriate state-designated mental health authority for review when she received a new diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder and anxiety disorder. This failure could place residents at risk of not being evaluated and receiving PASRR services needed. Findings included: Record review of Resident #55's quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 05/21/2026, reflected the Resident #55 was a [AGE] year old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #55 had active diagnoses of bipolar disorder (mental health condition characterized by extreme, dramatic shifts in mood, energy, and activity levels, alternating between intense highs (mania or hypomania) and lows) and anxiety (a natural human emotion characterized by feelings of worry, nervousness, or unease,…
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 · D2026-05-06 · 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 a resident who is incontinent of bladder receives appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for three of five residents (Residents #1, #2, and #3) reviewed for catheters. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1, #2, and #3's urinary catheters were anchored/secured to protect the resident's urethral openings and maintain proper urine flow.This failure could place residents with urinary catheters at risk of pulling/tension, kinks, and accidental dislodgment which could result in trauma and increase the risk of urinary tract infections.Findings included:Record review of Resident #1's MDS, dated [DATE], reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included stroke affecting her speech and ability to swallow, diabetes, and pressure ulcers. The resident's BIMS score was not calculated due to her medical conditions. Her Functional Ability assessment reflected…
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 before2026-02-20 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident 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 2 (Resident #1 and Resident #2) of 5 residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure LVN A introduced herself and spoke to Resident #1 while administering pain medication. The facility failed to ensure LVN A introduced herself and spoke to Resident #2 while moving his call light. These failures could place residents at risk of not being treated with respect and dignity.Findings included: Review of Resident #1's admission MDS Assessment, dated 02/20/26, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her BIMS score was 14, which indicated she was cognitively intact. Her diagnoses included arthritis and pelvic fracture. An observation and interview on 02/19/26…
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 · D2026-02-20 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that pain management is provided to residents who require such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for pain management. The facility failed to ensure LVN A assessed the pain level for Resident #1. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their pain managed.Findings included: Review of Resident #1's admission MDS Assessment, dated 02/20/26, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her cognitive skills for daily decision making were not impaired. Her BIMS score was 14. Her diagnoses included arthritis and pelvic fracture. Review of Resident #1's Comprehensive Care Plans, dated 02/16/26, reflected:The resident was on pain medication therapy.Facility interventions included: Monitor/document/report adverse reactions 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 · D2025-11-20 · 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 a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for reasonable accommodations. The facility failed to ensure CNA A removed Resident #1's lunch tray from the bedside table to accommodate him when requested.The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance (PNC) that began on 11/03/25 and ended on 11/03/25. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the state's investigation began. 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 11/20/25, revealed an [AGE] year-old man admitted on [DATE] with anxiety disorder (mental health conditions characterized by excessive worry or fear that interferes with daily life). During a record review of Resident #1's…
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 before2025-09-17 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that are complete and accurately documented for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for accuracy of medical records in that: The facility failed to document Resident #1's blood pressure before she was transported to dialysis on 08/13/25. This failure could place residents at risk of a change in condition and not receiving proper treatment and care in a timely manner.Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 09/17/25, reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 01/24/23. Resident #1 had a diagnosis of Stage 5 Chronic Kidney Disease (the most advanced stage of kidney disease), Acute or Chronic Heart Failure (sudden life-threatening or worsening heart condition), Bacterial Infection (harmful bacteria enter the body and can cause damage), End Stage Renal Disease (kidneys have lost most of the function), Type 2 Diabetes…
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 F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents, who needed respiratory care, were provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for one (Resident #1) of four residents reviewed for respiratory care.The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's nebulizer mask (device used to deliver medication in a mist form through the nose and mouth) was properly stored, in a plastic bag with the resident's name and date on it, when not in use on 08/13/2025.This failure could place residents at risk for respiratory infection and not having their respiratory needs met.Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's Face Sheet, dated 08/13/2025, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included COPD (disease of the lungs and airway that affects breathing), diabetes (the body does not use…
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 · E2025-05-01 · 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 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 on 05/01/2025 to ensure dented cans dated 04/28/2025 was placed in a separate storage area to keep from being used for residents' meals. These failures could place residents at risk for food-borne illness and cross contamination. Findings included: Observation of dry storage on 4/29/2025 at 9:22am revealed the following: two 6lbs 9oz cans of marinara sauce dated 4/28/2025 was dented on the front. In an interview with [NAME] A on 05/01/2025 at 1:05pm she stated it was the cook's responsibility to store and inspect dry goods in the dry storage upon delivery. She stated if she observed a dented can, she would let the DM know, and placed the dented can in the separate area the kitchen had for dented cans. She stated the DM took a picture of the dented can and sent the photo to the vendor. [NAME] A stated the after the food was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-12 · 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 residents received adequate supervision to prevent incidents and accidents for one resident (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for possible accident hazards and incidents. The facility failed to provide adequate supervision for Resident #1 on 07/23/2024 when he slid out of the sling during a mechanical lift transfer from wheelchair to bed. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance (PNC). The PNC began on 07/23/24 and ended on 07/28/24. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the state's survey began. This failure could place residents at risk for possible injuries due to lack of adequate supervision. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's Face Sheet reflected Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] reflected diagnoses including dementia, hypertension (elevated blood pressure), diabetes mellitus (alteration…
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 before2024-05-22 · 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, interview and record review, the facility failed to promote and maintain the residents' right to be treated with respect and dignity for 2 of 8 residents (Resident #2 and Resident #4) reviewed for dignity and respect in that: 1) The facility failed to provide Resident #2 with help using the toilet and was told by staff to wear an adult brief after her preference to use the tiolet with help was voiced. 2) The facility failed to answer call lights in a timely manner for Resident #2 and Resident # 4's. These faillures could place residents at risk of diminished quality of life and loss of dignity and self-worth. The findings were: 1) Record review of Resident #2's face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old female, admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included: Right Arm Arthritis (swelling and tenderness causes joint pain or stiffness), Overactive Bladder (a problem with bladder function that causes the sudden need to urinate), Unspecified Osteoarthritis (a progressive joint disease that causes…
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 · E2024-05-22 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received necessary services to maintain good personally hygiene for 3 out of 8 residents (#2, #5, and #6) reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to provide timely incontinence care for every two hours or as needed for Resident #2, # 5 and # 6 from 5/17/24 through 5/21/24. The facility failed to provide timely incontinence care on a regular basis for residents #2, #5, and #6. This failure could place residents at risk of skin breakdown, urinary tract infections and loss of dignity. Findings included: 1) Record review of Resident #2's face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old female, admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included: Right Arm Arthritis (swelling and tenderness causes joint pain or stiffness), Overactive Bladder (a problem with bladder function that causes the sudden need to urinate), Unspecified Osteoarthritis (a progressive joint disease that causes…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-05 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that were complete and accurately documented for 1 (Resident #80) of 5 residents reviewed for clinical records. 1. The facility failed to ensure staff kept copies of Resident #80's shower sheets from February and March 2024. 2. The facility failed to provide nurses notes on Resident #80's refusals to shower from February and March 2024. These failures could affect residents and place them at risk of inaccurate or incomplete clinical records. Findings included: Review of Resident #80's face sheet, dated 03/27/2024, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old woman who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged [DATE]. Her diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, unspecified infectious disease, unspecified fall, hemorrhage of left cerebrum without loss of consciousness, and urinary tract infection. Review of Resident 80's MDS assessment,…
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
$10,036 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $10,036 — penalty dated 2024-04-05
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 CANTEX CONTINUING CARE — 37 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 | 3.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
The other 36 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.1★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DALLAS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 05/01/2020 |
| CASTANEDA, EDMUNDO | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/10/2022 |
| CERISE, FREDERICK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/24/2014 |
| PLANO CONTINUING CARE CENTER LTD. CO. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/31/2025 |
| GARCIA, JENNIFER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/31/2024 |
| EDEHIA, EMMANUEL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/17/2024 |
| SHARIF, ZAIN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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 676429. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-25, 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.