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

Remington Transitional Care Of Richardson

1350 E Lookout Dr, Richardson, TX 75082 · Non profit - Corporation · 90 certified beds · (972) 220-2000 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (972) 220-2000 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 11 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record

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 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
2520 N Central Expy Ste 100 · (972) 234-3311 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1300 E Campbell Rd · (800) 552-8159 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
1411 E Renner Rd · (214) 273-0902 · Call to confirm hours
Park
2400 Lookout Dr · (972) 744-4300 · 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 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 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.

Overall rating4★
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 increased12.5%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 bladder1.4%0.3%0.9%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection2.8%0.8%2.0%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms2.7%2.4%6.5%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger 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 injury3.4%3.3%3.3%typical
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened16.3%14.0%16.1%typical
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication8.6%18.0%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine91.4%98.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.2%3.8%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control7.8%13.4%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table6.7%9.6%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.5%1.5%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine78.6%88.0%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission21.1%25.7%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit11.5%12.3%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.172.171.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.812.061.80better

* 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.

58.0% 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 266 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

58.0%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
57.4%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.75U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.31hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.32hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.12hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 57.4% 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 136 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 0.75 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 38% 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 SNF58.0%CMS range 51.2–62.051.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.8%CMS range 8.3–14.110.7%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 discharge57.4%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 discharge62.5%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 discharge55.9%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 identified100.0%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 setting96.4%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 stay0.0%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 worsened0.0%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 hospitalization5.2%CMS range 3.2–8.47.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.051.02Oct 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

0.65
RN hours/ resident / day
1.26
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.62
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.53
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.45
RN hoursweekends
42.0%
Total nursing turnover
27.3%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 90 beds and averages 88.7 residents a day — about 99% occupied, or roughly 1 bed typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.53 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.65 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.62 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 3.29 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.62 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.73 to 0.45 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 42% 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

4
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-06-12)
1
at the previous standard inspection (2024-05-09)

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.

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

  • Potential for harm · D2025-08-29 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for 1 (Resident #1) of 6 residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received care in accordance with professional standards when the resident, who was diagnosed with type II diabetes, did not have any orders or monitoring tools to monitor for hyper/hypoglycemia when he re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving appropriate treatment, which could result in a decline in health and serious harm. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 08/29/25, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1's diagnoses included Metabolic Encephalopathy (brain does not function properly due to underlying metabolic…

    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 · F2025-06-12 · 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 in the facility's only kitchen reviewed for food safety. 1. The facility failed to ensure food items in the freezers were stored, sealed, and not exposed to air in accordance with the professional standards for food service. 2. The facility failed to ensure dented cans were placed in a separate storage area. These failures could place residents at risk for food-borne illness and cross contamination. Findings Included: Observation of the walk-in freezer and dry storage on 06/10/2025 at 9:20 am revealed the following: - 1 food service company name stamped on box with a date of 5/15, no other label on box to identify item, the bag of hot dog/sausage links was in a large bag inside of the box that was left open and it was not sealed. - 1 6 lb 15 oz can of Pinto Beans best by date March 2027 dented on the front top right. - 1 6 lb 15 oz can of Pinto Beans best by date April 2027 dented on the front top…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-06-12 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    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 a comprehensive care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timeframe's to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment and describes the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs for one (Resident #282) of six residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan to address Resident #282's behaviors (pulling the pillows out under legs and feet and throwing on the floor) related to offloading of her heels to prevent pressure area to the heels. The family refusing to allow the pressure relieving mattress the wound care physician had ordered; instead used an inappropriate mattress overlay the family had brought from the hospital. This failure could place all residents at risk of not receiving…

    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 · D2025-06-12 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible for one (Resident #63) of three residents reviewed for adequate supervision to prevent accidents. The facility failed to ensure resident safety, as evidenced by: The facility failed to ensure supplies for glucometer testing (blood sugar) and intravenous supplies (to give medication through veins) were secured or attended by authorized staff when LVN A's medication cart for Hall 100 was left with glucose testing solution, glucose testing strips, alcohol swabs, and clave connectors (to connect tubing for intravenous medication delivery) sitting on top of the cart. This failure could result in resident access and ingestion of prescribed treatment medications and obtaining harmful supplies leading to a risk for harm. Findings included: An observation on 06/10/2025 at 10:20 a.m. revealed LVN A was preparing to administer an intravenous antibiotic to a Resident #29…

    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 · Dcited before2025-06-12 · 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 one (Resident #29) of four resident's observed for infection control in that: LVN A failed to clean the scissors prior to or after usage during Resident #29's treatments. Placing the unclean scissors back on the treatment cart. This failure could place residents at risk for spread of infection through cross-contamination. Findings included: Review of Resident #29's 5-day MDS assessment, dated 05/26/2025, reflected he was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the following diagnoses: diabetes, diabetic wound of the right heel, post-surgical wound of the right, and heart failure. Resident #29 BIMs score of 15 indicated the resident had intact cognition. Review of the Resident #29's plan of care dated…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-06-12 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — pattern
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure residents who entered the facility received care and treatment consistent with professional standards of practice to prevent pressure ulcers and a resident with pressure ulcers receives necessary treatment and service to promote healing and/or prevent further development of skin breakdown or pressure ulcers, for one (Resident #282) of four residents reviewed for prevention and maintenance of pressure ulcers. The facility failed to ensure Resident #282, who was identified as entered the facility with a pressure sore to the sacrum and was at risk of developing additional pressure ulcers, received necessary treatment and services thru use of a low air mattresses, which was chosen as prophylaxis by the Wound Care physician to prevent the development of or worsening of pressure ulcers. This failure could place residents at risk of developing pressure ulcers or worsening of existing pressure ulcers. The findings included: Record review of Resident…

    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 · D2024-05-13 · tag F0694 — isolated
    Provide for the safe, appropriate administration of IV fluids 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 residents received parenteral fluids administered consistent with professional standards of practice and in accordance with physician orders for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for parenteral fluids. The facility failed to manage Resident #1's PICC line dressing per professional standards and per the physician's order. This failure placed residents at risk of developing an infection. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's admission MDS Assessment revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old male, who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses: Sepsis, Osteomyelitis of Vertebra, Sacral and Sacrococcygeal Region; Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region, Stage 4; and CKD. Resident #1 had a BIMS summary score of 15 which suggested intact cognition. The admission MDS Assessment revealed Resident #1 admitted with a Central IV Access. Record review of Resident #1's care plan, initiated 05/01/24, 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-05-09 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolated
    Provide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who required dialysis received such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, for 1 (Resident #16) of 1 resident's reviewed for dialysis. The facility failed to ensure post-dialysis assessments were completed for Resident #16 after thy returned from dialysis treatment. This failure could place residents at risk of inadequate post dialysis care. Findings included: Record review of Resident #16's, admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #16 had diagnoses which included end stage renal failure (when kidneys suddenly become unable to filter waste products from blood), dependence on renal dialysis, (procedure to cleanse the blood), and Hypertension (increased blood pressure). Resident #16 had a BIMs score of 12, which reflected she was cognitively alert and oriented and able to make decisions for herself. The MDS…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-05-09 · 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 establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for two of three staff members (CNA A and CNA B) reviewed for infection control procedures. CNA A failed to perform hand hygiene after direct contact with residents while serving meals on the hallways, and CNA B failed to perform hand hygiene while delivering water to three residents. This failure could place residents at risk for healthcare associated cross contamination and infections. Findings included: Record review of Resident #246's annual MDS assessment, dated 04/30/24, revealed a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #246 had diagnoses which included: septicemia (infection that has spread to the bloodstream), urinary tract infection (within the last 30 days), hypertension…

    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 · D2023-11-07 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
    Safeguard 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 clinical records. The facility failed to ensure staff documented need for Resident #1 to receive oxygen treatment. This failure could affect residents that received medications and place them at risk of inaccurate or incomplete clinical records. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's undated electronic face sheet a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of hypokalemia (a lower-than-normal potassium level in your bloodstream), Hypernatremia (common electrolyte problem), hyperosmolality (loss of water also makes the blood more concentrated than normal), dementia without behavior disturbance, dysphagia (swallowing difficulties) Review of Resident #1's admission MDS Assessment, dated 10/18/23, reflected a BIMS score was not completed. The…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-03-15 · 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 control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of infection for two of six residents (Resident #35 and #210) observed for infection control. CNA A failed to perform hand hygiene during while providing incontinence care to Resident # 35. CNA B failed to perform hand hygiene during while providing incontinence care to Resident # 210. This failure could placed the residents at risk for infection. Findings include: Record review of Resident #35's face sheet dated 3/15/23 reflected he was [AGE] years old male. He was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He was admitted with fracture of tibia (larger of the two bones in the lower leg), respiratory failure, heart failure, difficult walking and need for assistance with personal care. Review of Resident #35's care plan initiated 2/13/23 reflected the resident had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to Orthopedic surgery and the intervention 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.

    Infection Control 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.

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

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
REGENCY IHS OF RICHARDSON LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 10/01/2018
DWYER, JOHNIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 09/15/2022
EICHORN, CHAVAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 09/15/2022
MANDELBAUM, ELLIOTIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 09/15/2022
REYNOLDS, BRIANIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 09/15/2022
RIEDER, SAMUELIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 09/15/2022
SCULLY, FINBARIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 09/15/2022
KAUFMAN, NICOLEIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 09/15/2022
BAIRD, DANIELIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 09/15/2022
CARVAJAL, ANTONIOIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 09/15/2022
CLAPP, BARBARAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 09/15/2022
CORTESE, DARENIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 09/15/2022
DEKOWSKI, DONOVANIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 10/01/2018
GIBSON, PATRICIAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 09/15/2022
GONZALES, VERONICAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 09/15/2022
KHAN, ADEELIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
MALDONADO, TONYAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/29/2025
1350 EAST LOOKOUT DRIVE LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/15/2022
ARB OP VENTURES LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/15/2022
BRIAN K REYNOLDS SPOUSAL TR UAOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/15/2022
CAPITAL FUNDING GROUP, INC.OrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/15/2022
CSV RHEA MANAGEMENT HOLDCO, LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 10/01/2018
CSV TX INVESTORS LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/15/2022
DWD TX HOLDINGS LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/15/2022
EM MANCO INVESTOR LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/15/2022
EMFI LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/15/2022
FINBAR SCULLY SPOUSAL TRUST AGREEMENTOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/15/2022
JACK AND NANCY DWYER WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT CENTER INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/15/2022
REG BRIDGE OPCO LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/15/2022
REG HG OPCO LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/15/2022
REG OPERATOR HOLDCO LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/15/2022
REGENCY IHS CLINICAL CONSULTING, LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/15/2022
REGENCY IHS REHAB LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/15/2022
REGENCY INTEGRATED HEALTH SERVICES LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 10/01/2018
REGENCY TEXAS HOLDINGS LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/15/2022
RH MANCO INVESTOR 1 LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/15/2022
RH MANCO INVESTOR 2 LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 09/15/2022
HARRINGTON, TESSAIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
PETERS, JULIETIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 41 rows in the source record cover these 39 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

21 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.

$8.2M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-23.8%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 0%Medicare 26%Other / private 74%

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

$588per resident / day
operating cost
$17,869per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$475per 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 676243. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-12, 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