Robstown Nursing And Rehabilitation Center
603 E Ave J, Robstown, TX 78380 · Government - Hospital district · 94 certified beds · (361) 387-1568 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0607) — most recent Feb 2024
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 3 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- 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 $12,055 in federal fines (most recent 2024-02-23)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 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 — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
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 1 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 0.6% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.6% | 3.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.5% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 2.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.8% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 0.0% | 14.0% | 16.1% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.5% | 18.0% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.1% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 4.3% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.7% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.8% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.4% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.24 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 33% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 94 beds and averages 59.8 residents a day — about 64% occupied, or roughly 34 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 2.71 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.31 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.58 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 2.47 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.81 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.35 to 0.20 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 53% 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
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2024-02-23 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — patternProtect 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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident had the right to be free from abuse for three residents (Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3) of 12 residents reviewed for abuse/neglect. The facility failed to ensure: -Resident #1 and Resident #2 were free of abuse, Resident #1 and Resident #2 sustained facial injuries from being hit in the face by Resident #3 multiple times, while they laid in bed resulting in bruising, cuts and discoloration to their face. -Facility nursing staff failed to assess residents after being notified of residents with injuries. -Resident #1 verbalized he was fearful of the alleged perpetrator and fearful that he was going to get assaulted again, since the perpetrator was not removed from the vicinity. An IJ was identified on 02/21/24. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 10:01 AM. While the IJ was removed on 02/23/24, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern and a severity level of potential…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2024-02-23 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — patternDevelop 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 interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to implement its policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents for three residents (Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3) of 12 residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. 1. The facility failed to immediately implement an investigation after they were made aware of an abuse allegation involving Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3. 2. The facility failed to report the abuse allegation to the State Survey Agency and local law enforcement in accordance with state law. 3.The facility failed to ensure that all residents were protected from physical and psychosocial harm after made aware of the incident involving a resident to resident assault when Resident #3 assaulted Resident #1 and Resident #2 and they sustained facial bruising, cuts, and discoloration. An IJ was identified on 02/21/23. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 10:01 AM. While the IJ was removed on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2024-02-23 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide 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 that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan, for two residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) of 12 residents reviewed for quality of care, in that: The facility failed to promptly respond and assess Resident #1 and Resident #2 on 2 separate occasions by 2 different LVNs when they were made aware of Resident #1 and Resident #2 having injuries from an assault after being hit in the face multiple times, while they laid in bed resulting in bruising, cuts and discoloration to their face. An IJ was identified on 02/21/23. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 10:01 AM. While the IJ was removed on 02/23/24, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern and a severity level of potential for more than minimal harm that is because all staff were not aware of and did not implement the facility's abuse…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-01-06 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 3-unit refrigerators (1 of 3 resident refrigerator) reviewed for storage, preparation and sanitation. -The facility failed to ensure food items in the resident's refrigerator were sealed properly. -The facility failed to ensure food items in the resident's refrigerator were not expired. -These failures could place residents at risk of complications from food contamination Findings included: Observations during the initial tour of the kitchen on 01/07/26 at 9:30 am revealed one bag with a half a head of cabbage spoiled and had black mold and did not have use by date. In an interview with DA B on 01/07/26 at 9:47 a.m. said all kitchen staff were responsible for cleaning the refrigerator and made sure that all food was labeled, had not expired, and had a use by date. DA #B stated the fridge was cleaned and all expired food was thrown out daily. DA B could not explain why the cabbage did not have a date of when the cabbage was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-06 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments on 1 of 3 medication carts reviewed for storage of drugs. The facility failed to ensure LVN D's medication cart located by the nurse station was locked when not in use. This failure could affect residents who have medications on the nurse's medication cart and could result in lost medications, drug diversion, or harm due to accidental ingestion of unprescribed medications. Findings included: During an observation on 01/05/26 at 6:06 PM, a medication cart by the nurse station appeared to be unlocked. This surveyor opened the top drawer, recognizing the medication cart being unlocked while not in use. Multiple medications in bulk bottles and blister packs were easily assessable for removal. LVN D was sitting behind the nurse's station and identified herself as being responsible for the unlocked medication cart.In an interview on 01/05/26 at 6:08 PM, LVN D stated that she went to the computer at the nurse's station and just forgot to lock the medication cart.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program, designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections, for one of five Residents (Resident #6) that were reviewed for infection control and transmission-based precautions policies and practices.The facility failed to ensure LVN A performed hand hygiene after removing gloves after pat drying Resident #6's wound. This failure could place residents at risk of infection through cross contamination of pathogens and infectious diseases. Findings include: Record review of Resident #6's face sheet dated 01/05/25 reflected a [AGE] year-old male with an original admission date of 11/21/25. Diagnoses included urinary tract infection and unstageable (full-thickness skin and muscle loss, with slough or eschar obstructing the wound bed) pressure ulcer (localized damage to the skin…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-10-10 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for sanitation. The facility failed to maintain the floors safely. The facility failed to ensure utensils were clean and sanitized. The facility failed to ensure dishes were clean and sanitary. The facility failed to ensure juice guns were maintained and sanitary. The facility failed to ensure ingredients were not left open to air. The facility failed to ensure food in the refrigerator was not expired. The facility failed to ensure food in the dry storage area was properly covered. The facility failed to ensure food in the freezer was properly packaged. The facility failed to ensure equipment was maintained and sanitary. These failures could place residents at risk of foodborne illnesses. Findings included: An observation of the kitchen on 08/24 at 8:52 AM revealed the following: The floors were wet and slippery. A large spatula on the puree machine had broken edges on all…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-10 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan based on assessed needs that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs and describes the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 (Resident #48) of 8 residents reviewed for comprehensive person-centered care plans. The facility failed to develop and implement Resident #48's care plan to keep the bed in a low position. This failure could affect the resident by placing them at risk for not receiving care and services to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The findings included: Record review of Resident #48's face sheet dated 10/09/24 reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 01/20/24. Pertinent diagnoses included Depression (mental disorder that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-22 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving the reasonable suspicion of a crime were reported immediately to a law enforcement entity for its political subdivision, within two hours if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, for 1 (Resident #1 ) of 7 residents reviewed for abuse/neglect. The facility failed to report Resident #1's allegations of abuse to the local law enforcement agency within the allotted time frame of 2 hours on 08/18/24 when Resident #1 was injured in a physical altercation initiated by Resident #2 at around 2 PM, sustaining a skin tear to his right forearm. This failure could place all residents at increased risk for potential abuse due to unreported allegations of abuse. The findings included: Resident #1 Record review of Resident #1's face sheet…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-23 · tag F0728 — failed to protect against nurse-aide misconduct — patternEnsure that nurse aides who have worked more than 4 months, are trained and competent; and nurse aides who have worked less than 4 months are enrolled in appropriate training.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure nurse aides were able to demonstrate competencies in skills and techniques necessary to care for residents' needs, as identified through resident assessments, and described in the plan of care, for three residents (Resident #4, Resident #5, and Resident #6) of 12 residents reviewed for competent nursing staff, in that: Uncertified Nurse Aides were scheduled to work independently, performing hands-on care to residents, without any formal certification or competency trainings. These deficient practices could affect residents that are dependent upon staff for personal care and could potentially result in medical complications. Findings included: 1) Resident #4 Record review of Resident #4's face sheet dated 02/18/2024, revealed Resident #4 was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #4 was diagnosed with acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (respiratory failure), sepsis (infection), weakness, and acute embolism and thrombosis…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-23 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that all allegations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events that caused the allegation involved abuse or resulted in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials which included to the State Survey Agency, in accordance with State law through established procedures for three residents (Resident #1, Resident #2 and Resident #3) of 12 residents reviewed for abuse/neglect. The facility failed to report the abuse allegation to the State Survey Agency and local law enforcement in accordance with state law after they were made aware of an abuse allegation involving Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3. These failures had the potential to result in serious injury or death as a result 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-23 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of 1 of (Resident #4) of 12 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to administer Resident #4's medication appropriately. LVN D left Resident #4's lifesaving medications on his bedside table, without ensuring Resident #4 took the medication appropriately. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving medications as ordered. The findings included: Record review of Resident #4's face sheet dated 02/18/2024, revealed Resident #4 was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted on [DATE]. Resident #4 was diagnosed with acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (respiratory failure), sepsis (infection), weakness, and acute embolism and thrombosis (blood clots). Record review of Resident #4's admission MDS dated [DATE] revealed, Resident #4 had a BIMS of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-07-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
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 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed and 1 of 1 nutrition room, for kitchen sanitation. 1. The facility failed to ensure spices were properly covered and sealed. 2. The facility failed to ensure steam tables were kept clean. 3. The facility failed to ensure plastic dishes were kept clean. 4. The facility failed to ensure the air vent in the kitchen was clean. 5. The facility failed to ensure the ice machine was cleaned. 6. The facility failed to ensure food items in the nutrition area were labeled and dated. 7. The facility failed to ensure the temperature in the nutrition room wasn't too hot. These failures could place residents at risk of foodborne illnesses. Findings include: Observation during the initial tour of the kitchen on 07/24/23 at 10:25 am revealed six, 18 oz. plastic containers of spices next to the stove were open to the air. A 6-quart container of thickened powder on the prep table was open to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-07-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program, designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections, for one (R#200) of five residents reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure CNA A performed hand hygiene and changed gloves prior to perineal care and after touching multiple surfaces. 2. The facility failed to ensure dietary staff immediately exited the facility after testing positive for COVID-19. These failures could place residents at risk for infection through cross contamination of pathogens. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #200's Face Sheet, dated 07/27/2023, revealed the resident was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #200 was a [AGE] year-old female with diagnoses which included: Alzheimer's (degenerative cognition), muscle weakness,…
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.
- No harm found · Ccited before2026-01-06 · tag F0912 — widespreadProvide rooms that are at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and 100 square feet for single resident rooms.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interview, and record reviews the facility failed to provide the required 80 square feet per resident in 48 of 48 resident rooms (101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 301, 302, 304, 305, 306, 307, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 600, 601, 602, 604, 606, 608, and 609.) All 48 rooms did not account for 80 square feet per resident.This failure could restrict the amount of resident care equipment and resident's personal effects that could be accommodated in these resident rooms and limit the residents' ability to move about the room. On 01/06/26 at 10:00 am, this surveyor utilized an agency laser measuring device and obtained measurements of a sample of 6 resident rooms (101, 206, 302, 406, 506, and 609). The rooms ranged in size from approximately 152 square feet to approximately 155 square feet.In an interview on 01/06/26 at 10:30 am, the administrator stated there had been no changes to any of the resident rooms and there was an existing room size waiver…
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.
- No harm found · Ccited before2024-10-10 · tag F0912 — widespreadProvide rooms that are at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and 100 square feet for single resident rooms.
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 provide the required 80 square foot per resident in 47 of 47 multiple resident rooms numbers (101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 401, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 600, 601, 602, 604, 606, 608, and 609). The facility failed to provide 80 square feet per resident in 47 shared resident rooms. This failure could affect residents who resided in the facility and could result in inadequate space for resident's activities of daily living in their rooms. Findings included: During an interview with the Administrator on 10/08/24 at 9:30 AM, the Administrator stated she wanted to apply for a room waiver again this year. The Administrator stated there had been no changes to room sizes since the last survey. The Administrator stated all their resident rooms were under 160 square feet. Review of annual surveys revealed the square footage of 20 sampled room measurements were as followed: 102 -…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$12,055 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $12,055 — penalty dated 2024-02-23
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 WELLSENTIAL HEALTH — 67 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
The other 66 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.7★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 66; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OAKBEND MEDICAL CENTER | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 03/01/2023 |
| CSV RHEA MANAGEMENT HOLDCO, LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 03/01/2023 |
| DWD TX HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 03/01/2023 |
| JACK AND NANCY DWYER WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT CENTER INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 03/01/2023 |
| REG BRIDGE OPCO LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 03/01/2023 |
| REG HG OPCO LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 03/01/2023 |
| REG OPERATOR HOLDCO LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 03/01/2023 |
| REGENCY INTEGRATED HEALTH SERVICES LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2023 |
| REGENCY TEXAS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 03/01/2023 |
| BAIRD, DANIEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 04/13/2021 |
| CARVAJAL, ANTONIO | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 05/16/2024 |
| CLAPP, BARBARA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 06/01/2021 |
| CORTESE, DAREN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 08/10/2021 |
| CRAYTON, TOM | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/15/2023 |
| DORMAN, JOHN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/18/2022 |
| FREUDENBERGER, JOSEPH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/19/2007 |
| GIBSON, PATRICIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 08/01/2021 |
| GONZALES, VERONICA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 05/16/2024 |
| HALEY, JEFF | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 07/15/2016 |
| KAUFMAN, NICOLE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 08/10/2021 |
| KING, ABBY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/23/2018 |
| KING, ELIZABETH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/17/2023 |
| MANDELBAUM, ELLIOT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| PISANI, ADAM | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/15/2019 |
| POPATIA, AMIRALI | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 03/17/2020 |
| STUART, JULIUS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/16/2023 |
| UTHMAN, EDWARD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 01/15/2008 |
| HUGHES, RUSTON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| MCCOY, DEXTER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| REGENCY IHS OF ROBSTOWN LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2023 |
| DEKOWSKI, DONOVAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2023 |
| SAENZ, DIANA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2018 |
| 603 E AVENUE J, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2023 |
| REGENCY IHS CLINICAL CONSULTING, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2023 |
| REGENCY IHS REHAB LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2023 |
| LERMA, VALERIE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| ROBLEDO, IVONNE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| TOMPKINS, KENT | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 47 rows in the source record cover these 38 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
13 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.
About 95% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $203K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 455838. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-06, 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.