No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Prestonwood Rehabilitation & Nursing Center

2460 Marsh Ln, Plano, TX 75093 · Government - Hospital district · 132 certified beds · (214) 731-5955 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Flagged for abuse3 immediate-jeopardy citations CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$14,433 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
Worth asking about
  • CMS has flagged it for abuse
  • it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0607, F0609) — most recent Apr 2025
  • inspectors recorded 3 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • the CMS record shows $14,433 in federal fines (most recent 2025-04-17)
  • its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
  • its independent health-inspection 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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 5 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 5 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 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, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
6957 W Plano Pkwy · (214) 390-7557 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
2501 E Hebron Pkwy Ste 100B · (972) 492-2151 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
7086 Sonoma Way · (972) 896-1478 · Call to confirm hours
Park
2701 La Costa Dr · (972) 941-7250 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 fell from 4 to 3 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.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased7.9%15.8%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight0.0%3.0%5.4%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.3%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%0.8%2.0%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.0%2.4%6.5%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury0.0%3.3%3.3%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened9.2%14.0%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication27.6%18.0%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%98.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers6.3%3.8%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control5.7%13.4%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table0.0%9.6%17.1%check this — see note marked star below the table
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.6%1.5%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine96.6%88.0%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission23.2%25.7%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit12.3%12.3%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.072.171.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.262.061.80better

* 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.

61.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 282 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

61.2%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
13.0%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
76.0%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.74U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.26hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.29hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.19hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 76.0% 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 167 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 0.74 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 93% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF61.2%CMS range 57.7–66.251.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF13.0%CMS range 10.2–15.710.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge76.0%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge79.6%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge45.5%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified99.5%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting98.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay0.9%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.9%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization8.4%CMS range 4.9–11.97.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.031.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

1.34
RN hours/ resident / day
0.90
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.97
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.21
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
1.08
RN hoursweekends
46.8%
Total nursing turnover
42.9%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 132 beds and averages 54.9 residents a day — about 42% occupied, or roughly 77 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.21 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.34 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.97 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 3.63 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.45 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.45 to 1.08 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 47% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

9
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-04-17)
6
at the previous standard inspection (2024-02-29)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Immediate jeopardy · K2025-04-17 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — pattern
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect the residents right to be free from sexual abuse for 2 residents (Resident #22 and Resident #52) of 24 residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. On 02/21/25, Resident # 1 inappropriately touched Resident # 22 and asked Resident #22 to kiss him. On 02/21/15, Resident # 1 grabbed the hand of Resident #52 and put Resident # 52's hand in his groin area. Resident # 1 then attempted to bend over and kiss Resident # 22. Resident # 1 asked Resident #52 to go to his room. A past noncompliance IJ was identified on 04/17/2025, and the IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 01:45 PM. The noncompliance began on 02/21/2025 and ended on 02/25/2025. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the Incident investigation began on 03/31/2025. This failure placed the facility's residents at risk for abuse and neglect. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 03/31/2025 reflected Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old male,…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Immediate jeopardy · Kdisputed · IDR2025-04-17 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — pattern
    Develop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
    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 implement written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect and exploitation of 2 (Resident #22 and Resident #52) of 24 residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. 1) LVN E and LVN M failed to immediately report sexual abuse incidents involving Resident #1 against Residents #22 and #52 to the Abuse Coordinator/the Administrator. 2) The facility failed to follow their policy to immediately protect Resident #22 and #52 from harm. 3) LVN E failed to identify sexual abuse when Resident #1 attempted to inappropriately touch Resident #52. A past noncompliance IJ was identified on 04/17/2025, and the IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 01:45 PM. The noncompliance began on 02/21/2025 and ended on 02/25/2025. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the Incident investigation began on 03/31/2025. This could place residents at risk for abuse, neglect and exploitation. Findings included: Review of the…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Immediate jeopardy · K2025-04-17 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — pattern
    Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse and neglect were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegations were made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse, to the Administrator of the facility and the State Survey Agency for two (Residents #22 and #52) of 24 residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. LVN E and LVN M failed to immediately report the sexual abuse incidents involving Residents #22 and #52 to the Administrator. LVN M observed an incident of suspected sexual abuse involving Resident #1 and Resident #22 on 02/21/2025 at 09:36 AM and LVN E observed another incident of suspected sexual abuse involving Resident #1 and Resident #52 on 02/21/2025 at 01:34 PM. The administrator learned about these incidents on 02/25/2025 and she self-reported the allegation of sexual abuse to the state agency on 02/25/2025 at 04:00 PM. A past noncompliance IJ was identified on 04/17/2025, and the IJ…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · E2025-04-17 · tag F0640 — pattern
    Encode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
    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 a discharge MDS was electronically completed and transmitted to the CMS System within 14 days after completion for one (Resident #16) of one resident reviewed for discharge assessments. The facility failed to complete and transmit Resident #16's discharge MDS assessment within 14 days of completion. This failure could place the residents at risk of having incomplete records. Findings include: Review of Resident #16's face sheet, dated 04/02/25, reflected Resident #16 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged from the facility on 12/05/2024. Review of Resident #16's MDS assessments on 04/02/25 revealed Resident #16 did not have a discharge MDS assessment completed. This MDS record was identified as greater than 120 days late on the resident assessment facility task. An interview on 04/02/25 at 09:41 AM with MDS LVN E revealed Resident #16 was discharged from the facility on 12/05/2024. LVN E stated that she…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-04-17 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
    Develop 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, consistent with Resident rights, that include measurable objectives and time frames to meet Residents' mental and psychosocial needs for 1 (Resident #32) of 4 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to address Resident # 32's pressure ulcers. This failure could place residents at risk of not having a plan developed to address care needs. Findings include: Record review of Resident #32's MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #32 was a [AGE] year-old male initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Relevant diagnoses included Anemia (Lower amount of healthy red blood cells), Hypertension (High blood pressure), Heart Failure, Hyperlipidemia (high lipid levels ) and Respiratory failure (condition in which lungs are unable to perform their primary function: moving…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-04-17 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — pattern
    Ensure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on Observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all residents were free of significant medication errors for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #38) reviewed for pharmacy. The facility failed to ensure the medication Lisinopril tablet 2.5 mg, twice a day was given to Resident #38 on 03/29/2025, 03/30/2025 and 03/31/2025. This failure could place residents at risk of medical complications and not receiving the therapeutic effects of their medications. Findings included: Record review of Resident #38's face sheet dated 04/01/2025 revealed he was an [AGE] year-old male with an admission date of 03/10/2025 with diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure) and heart failure. Record review of Resident #38's MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed he had a BIMS score of 09 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #38 needed moderate assistance with chair to bed and toilet transfers. Record review of Resident #38's care plan dated 03/13/2025 revealed he had a history of CHF and is at…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-04-17 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the facility's only kitchen. The facility failed to ensure food items in the facility walk-in freezer were covered, labeled, and dated. These failures could affect residents who received their meals from the facility's only kitchen, by placing them at risk for food-borne illness, and food contamination. Findings included: Observation on 03/31/25 at 09:41 AM of the facility walk-in freezer revealed: 1. Frozen ground beef patties inside a cardboard box were not covered and not dated. 2. Frozen oatmeal raisin cookie dough inside a plastic bag in a cardboard box was left open. 3. Frozen meat that looked like Chicken breasts were out of their original packaging and were not dated or labeled. In an interview on 03/31/25 at 09:46 AM Assistant [NAME] F revealed everyone in the kitchen including cooks, dietary aides, and the dietary manager was responsible for covering, dating, and labeling food items in…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-17 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for 1 (Resident #32) of 1 resident reviewed for catheter care. 1. The facility failed to ensure CNA C and CNA D maintained the foley catheter drainage bag below Resident #32's bladder during a mechanical lift transfer. This failure placed residents at risk for the development and/or worsening of urinary tract infections and dislodgement of the foley catheter. Findings included: Record review of Resident #32's MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected a [AGE] year-old male initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included coronary artery disease, obstructive uropathy (disorder of the urinary tract due to obstructed urinary flow), and hypertension (elevated blood pressure). He had a BIMS score of 04/15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment, required extensive to total…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-17 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
    Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to ensure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of medications for 1 (Nursing Medication cart hall 500 ) of 4 medication carts reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure prompt identification of potential diversion of controlled medications when LVN B did not report a damaged blister pack of Lorazepam 0.5 mg (controlled medication). This failure could place residents at risk of not having their medication available due to possible drug diversion and at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of the medication. Findings included: Record review of Resident#5's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 01/26/25, reflected she was an [AGE] year-old female with admission date of 11/30/23. Resident#5's BIMs score was 6/15 which indicated severe cognition impairment. Her diagnoses included diabetes mellitus (elevated blood sugar), dementia (diseases that affect…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-17 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an Infection Prevention and Control Program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 6 residents (Resident #32 and Resident #222) observed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure CNA C and CNA D used the required PPE for Resident#32 who was on enhanced barrier precautions due to his foley catheter, and wound , while performing a mechanical lift transfer on 04/01/25. The facility failed to ensure CNA C and CNA D used the required PPE for Resident#222 who was on enhanced barrier precautions due to his foley catheter, and wound, while performing a two person assist transfer on 04/02/25. These failures could place the residents at risk of cross-contamination and lapses in infection control. Findings included: 1- Resident #32 Record review of Resident #32's MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected a…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-02-29 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the facility's only kitchen. 1. The facility failed to date food stored in the walk-in refrigerator. 2. The facility failed to date food stored in the walk-in freezer . 3. The facility failed to cover and date food in the dry storage. 4. The facility failed to sanitize the food thermometer while measuring entrée temperatures. These failures could place residents who at risk for food-borne illness and food contamination. Findings included: Observation in facility's kitchen on 02/27/24 at 09:51 AM revealed hard boiled eggs in the walk-in refrigerator were not dated. Observation in facility's kitchen on 02/27/24 at 09:53 AM revealed a bag of frozen mixed vegetables in the walk-in freezer was not dated. Observation in facility's kitchen on 02/27/24 at 09:56 AM revealed a packet of Taco shells was left opened, uncovered, and undated in a box. Observation in facility kitchen on 02/28/2024 at 11:15 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-02-29 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — pattern
    Honor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
    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 residents had the right to and the facility promoted and facilitated resident self-determination trough support of resident choice for 4 of 24 residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure residents were informed and provided the right to eat in the dining room. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of having their rights violated, poor self-esteem and socialization and a poor quality of life. Findings include: Interview with CNA K on 02/27/2024 at 11:45 AM revealed all residents ate in their rooms for dinner and were not taken to the dining room. CNA K stated she wasn't sure why and some residents requested to eat in the dining room in the past but she wasn't sure which residents. CNA K stated she would be willing to take the residents to the dining room if the facility chose to serve dinner in the dining room. Interview with RN J on 02/27/2024 at 12:55 PM revealed she was assigned to lunch today and residents often ate in the dining room for lunch. RN J stated…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-02-29 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — pattern
    Honor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
    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 ensure residents had the right to and the facility made prompt efforts to resolve grievances the resident may for 3 of 24 residents (Residents #18, #32, #50) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure residents received responses to grievances and concerns. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of having their rights violated, not receive responses to their grievance, a decreased of self-worth and a decline in quality of life. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #18's Comprehensive MDS, dated [DATE], reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #18 had diagnoses which included unspecified Dementia, Coronary Artery Disease, Hypertension, Hyperlipidemia and Diabetes Mellitus. Resident #18 had a BIMS score of 10, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. 2. Record review of Resident #32's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-02-29 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — pattern
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and a resident who was incontinent of bowel received appropriate treatment and services to restore as much normal bowel function as possible for three of four residents (Residents #20, #8 and #38) reviewed for incontinence and foley catheter care. 1. CNA N failed to provide adequate perineal care for Resident #20, after an incontinent episode, when she failed to ensure all fecal matter was removed from the resident's perineal area. 2. CNA E failed to provide adequate perineal care for Resident #8, after an incontinent episode, when she failed to ensure all fecal matter was removed from the resident's perineal area and failed to clean the residents' buttocks from front to back. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #38's catheter bag did not have contact with the floor. These failures could place residents at…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-02-29 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for six (Resident #11, Resident #113, Resident #42, Resident #114, Resident #20, and Resident # 8) of ten residents observed for infection control. 1. LVN A failed to decontaminate the glucometer which was used to obtain a fingerstick blood sugar on Resident #11 when she failed to allow the glucometer that was sanitized with a germicidal wipe to air dry before returning the glucometer to the medication cart. 2. LVN A failed to prevent cross contamination of Resident #11's insulin and a bottle of test strips, used to obtain glucose levels, when she carried both items into Resident #11's room. 3. LVN D failed to prevent cross contamination of a bottle of test strips, used to obtain glucose levels, when she carried the bottle into…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-02-29 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide 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 a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 3 Residents (Resident #13) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #13's nasal cannula tubing was labeled or dated. This failure could place residents at risk of respiratory infections. The finding were: Record review of Resident #13's Annual MDS assessment, dated 1/14/2024, reflected Resident #13 was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #13's relevant diagnoses included Stroke, Chronic Obstructive pulmonary disease (lung disease that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), Diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar levels) and Hyperlipidemia (high levels of lipid in blood). Resident #13 was on oxygen therapy. Record review of Resident #13's comprehensive…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

“Disputed” is CMS’s own flag, not our reading: the CMS deficiency file records whether the home has formally contested a citation, and we reproduce that. IDR is Informal Dispute Resolution, run by the state survey agency that wrote the citation; IIDR is Independent Informal Dispute Resolution, a separate process before an outside entity, available when CMS has proposed a civil money penalty. They are different processes and we mark them differently. Two things to hold at once. A disputed citation is still a citation — it was written by a surveyor, it stands on the record unless and until it is changed, and we neither hide it nor discount it. And we cannot tell you how the dispute came out: CMS publishes that a citation is under dispute, not the outcome, so a tag marked here may since have been upheld, reduced, or deleted, and an unmarked tag may have been disputed and resolved before this file was cut. Ask the home what it disputed and why — it is entitled to tell you, and the answer is often the most informative thing on this page.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$14,433 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $14,433 — penalty dated 2025-04-17

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 DALLAS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT — 5 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 53.0+1.0 vs chain
Health inspection 2 of 52.2-0.2 vs chain
Staffing 5 of 52.8+2.2 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 54.6+0.4 vs chain
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, 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 / managerTypeRoleSince
FOSTER, ROBERTIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 03/23/2022
BRADLEY, SHANNANIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 12/11/2023
CERISE, FREDERICKIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 03/24/2014
CASTANEDA, EDMUNDOIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/10/2022
DALLAS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICTOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 04/01/2017
MILLENNIAL CARE MANAGEMENT, INC.OrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 04/01/2017

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

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.

$8.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-10.7%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 37%Medicare 20%Other / private 43%

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

$369per resident / day
operating cost
$11,229per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$334per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Texas
$5,627/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$7,604/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,666/mo
Assisted living

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 676156. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-17, 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.

What to do next