Hunters Pond Rehabilitation And Healthcare
9903 Hunters Pond, San Antonio, TX 78224 · For profit - Corporation · 128 certified beds · (210) 477-2200 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- 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
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567)
- inspectors cited 3 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (38) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $66,531 in federal fines (most recent 2025-01-10)
- 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 (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 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 |
| 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 1 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 8.1% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 3.0% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| 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 | 1.3% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.5% | 2.4% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.8% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.0% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.0% | 18.0% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.1% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.4% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.2% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.0% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 81.1% | 88.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.5% | 25.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.5% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.60 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.69 | 2.06 | 1.80 | typical |
* 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.
49.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 72 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 64.9% 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 74 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 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 | 49.5%CMS range 41.4–57.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.8%CMS range 6.4–14.3 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 64.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 48.6% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 51.4% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 85.4% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 96.8% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 96.2% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.9% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.0%CMS range 4.3–13.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.96 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 128 beds and averages 115.2 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 13 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.31 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.36 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.09 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 2.97 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.45 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.42 to 0.22 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% 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.
38 citations, most serious first. The 13 most serious are shown; the remaining 25 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-01-10 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 (Resident #1) of 8 residents reviewed for accidents and hazards. MA A failed to have another staff assist while providing care for Resident #1 in the bed on 1/4/25. Resident #1 rolled out of the bed, fell to the floor, landed on her knees, and fractured both knees. Resident #1 was hospitalized after. An IJ was identified on 1/9/25. The IJ template was provided to the facility on 1/9/25 at 5:09 p.m. While the IJ was removed on 1/10/25 the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy because the facility needed to monitor the implementation of the plan of removal. The failure placed residents at risk for serious injury, harm, and/or death. 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-02-09 · tag F0742 — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty, or who has a history of trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who displayed or was diagnosed with a mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty received appropriate treatment and services to correct the assessed problem or to attain the highest practicable mental and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 57 Residents (Resident #1) reviewed for psychosocial concerns, in that: The facility failed to put interventions in place or promptly arrange for psychiatric services for Resident #1 after he displayed increased signs of depression on [DATE]. On the evening of [DATE], Resident #1 committed suicide by a firearm. This failure resulted in the identification of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on [DATE] at 5:05 p.m. While the IJ was removed on [DATE] at 3:20 p.m., the facility remained out of compliance at a level of potential harm with a scope identified as isolated until interventions were put in place to ensure residents with signs and/or symptoms of psychiatric illnesses were promptly evaluated…
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 · J2024-01-19 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors for 3 of 16 residents (Resident # 1, #2, and #3) reviewed for significant medication errors, in that; The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 insulin glargine (a long-acting insulin used to treat high blood sugar from diabetes) was held and not administered for a blood sugar level less than 100 per physician orders which resulted in the resident becoming unresponsive and requiring hospitalization in the ICU. This failure resulted in the identification of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 1/12/2024 at 3:49 p.m. The IJ template was provided to the facility on 1/12/24 at 3:59 p.m. While the IJ was removed on 1/13/24 the facility remained out of compliance at a level of actual harm with a scope identified as isolated until interventions were put in place to ensure staff members were in compliance with following physician orders for insulin administration. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's medication; insulin glargine was held for a blood sugar level less than…
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 before2026-06-04 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for 1of 5 residents (Residents #1) reviewed for resident assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's BIPAP was reflected on the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE]. BIPAP and oxygen were not reflected on her discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE]. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of missed or inaccurate care.The findings include: Record review of Resident #1's electronic face sheet dated 06/03/2026 reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnosis included: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (condition involving constriction of the airways and difficulty or discomfort in breathing). Record review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected under Section I Active Diagnoses she had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. She was noted to be oxygen therapy while a resident. Non-invasive mechanical ventilator 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 · Ecited before2026-02-09 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 13 of 13 residents (Residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, and #13) reviewed for reporting requirements for infection control.The DON and Administrator failed to report to the state survey agency when Residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, and #13 tested positive for the influenza virus from 01/26/2026 to 02/05/2026.This failure could put the residents at risk of neglect, illness, communicable diseases, respiratory distress, and harm.Findings included:Record review of Complaint Intake Investigation Worksheet #1067849, dated 02/06/2026, revealed it was alleged the facility had 12 residents diagnosed with the flu (influenza-a contagious respiratory illness caused by…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-08-13 · tag F0638 — patternAssure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
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 assess each resident using the quarterly review instrument specified by the State and approved by CMS in a timely manner for 5 of 9 residents (Resident #47, #60, #62, #131, and #153) reviewed for timely completion of MDS assessments.The facility failed to transmit an MDS assessment in a timely manner for Resident #47, #60, #62, #131, and #153This failure could lead to residents not receiving necessary, complete, or correct care due to lack of current information.The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #47's Face Sheet, dated 8/13/25, reflected an [AGE] year-old female resident initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of spinal stenosis (narrowing of spinal canal), type 2 diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar levels due to insulin resistance), and lymphedema (swelling in various areas of the body). Record review of Resident #47’s MDS assessments showed an annual MDS was in progress dated 7/31/25 and a Quarterly assessment…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-08-13 · 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, in that: 1. The facility failed to date and label drinks, close sandwich bags and date them, date and label salads, and label and date brown rice. 2. The facility failed to keep boxes of food off the freezer floor. 3. The facility failed to log temperatures for the PM shift of a reach in refrigerator on the 8/7/25, 8/8/25, and 8/9/25. 4. The facility failed to log the sanitizing sink temperature and chemical levels on 8/6/25, 8/7/2, 8/8/25, 8/9/25, and 8/10/25. 5. The facility failed to remove black and brown slimy growth from the ice machine. These failures could place residents who received meals and/or snacks from the kitchen at risk for food borne illness. The findings included:1. During an observation on 8/10/25 at 9:36 a.m. 3 trays of various drinks were in the reach in fridge with no labels. There were two bags with sandwiches in them. The bags were open and not labeled. 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 · Ecited before2025-08-13 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain medical records, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, which are complete; and accurately documented for 3 of 24 residents (Resident #135, #25, and #170) reviewed for documentation.1. Resident #135's MAR did not accurately reflect the nurse administered medications on 5/27/25 at 4:00 AM. 2. Resident #25's shower sheets and Task Bathing document did not accurately reflect the resident received a shower. 3. Resident #170's shower sheets and Task Bathing document did not accurately reflect the resident received a shower.These failures placed residents at risk for delayed or inaccurate medication administration and ADL assistance and could result in a decline in health, dignity, and well-being.The findings included:1. Record review of Resident #135's face sheet, dated 8/12/25, reflected resident was a female age [AGE] admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-13 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health and safety of the resident or others for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #111) reviewed for call light placement. The facility failed to ensure the call light was within reach for Resident #111.This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not receiving help as needed.The findings were:Record review of Resident #111's face sheet dated 8/13/25 revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hemiplegia (paralysis affecting one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness affecting one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (type of stroke that occurs when blood flow to the brain is blocked) affecting the left non-dominant side, lack of coordination, and weakness.Record…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-13 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #25) reviewed for personal hygiene. The facility failed to provide Resident #25 with scheduled showers between 7/31/25 to 8/4/25, and 8/6/2025 to 8/8/25, and 8/10/25 to 8/13/25. This failure could place residents who require assistance from staff for personal hygiene at risk of not receiving care and services contributing to overall poor hygiene, risk of experiencing a diminished quality of life, and possible skin infections.The findings included:1. Record review of Resident #25's face sheet dated 8/10/25 revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included urinary tract infection, bacteremia (bacterial, infection in the blood stream), lack of coordination, retention 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 · D2025-08-13 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolatedDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly for 1 of 2 dumpsters (Dumpster #1) reviewed for disposal of garbage. The facility failed to ensure Dumpster #1 was closed and trash was not on the ground outside the dumpster. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for exposure to germs and diseases carried by vermin and rodents. The findings were: During an observation on 8/10/25 at 9:32 a.m. revealed the side door to dumpster #1 was open. On the ground beside the dumpster was a wipe, a used glove, and plastic wrapper. During an interview on 8/13/25 at 9:30 a.m. the Dietary Manager stated the dumpster should not be open because it can attract rodents or pest. During an interview on 8/13 at 4:17 p.m. the Administrator stated staff is expected to keep the dumpster closed and trash off the ground. A trash policy was requested from the DM and the Administrator on 8/13/25 and not provided.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infection for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #47) reviewed for infection control: The facility failed to ensure the treatment nurse did not touch her personal cell phone and then grab a handful of clean gloves while preparing supplies to clean Resident #47's pressure wound. These failures could place residents at-risk for infection due to improper care practices. The findings included: Record review of Resident #47's Face Sheet, dated 8/13/25, reflected an [AGE] year-old female resident initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of spinal stenosis (narrowing of spinal canal), type 2 diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar levels due to insulin resistance), and lymphedema (swelling in various areas of the body). Record review 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 · D2025-01-10 · 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 reviews the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations 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 is made, 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, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures, for 1 of 8 residents (Residents #1) reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility failed to report to the SA when MA A provided incontinent care to Resident #1 alone. Resident #1 required two staff to assist with bed mobility…
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.
Show the remaining 25 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-10 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that includes measurable objective and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care plans: The facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan with interventions that addressed Resident #1's need for 2 staff to assist with bed mobility. This failure could place residents at risk for not having their needs and preferences met. The findings were: Record review of Resident #1's admission record, dated 1/8/25, admitted on [DATE] revealed a [AGE] year-old female with diagnoses that included encephalopathy (any brain disorder or disease that affects the brain's structure or function), gastrostomy status (a surgical procedure that creates an opening in the abdomen and into the stomach. A…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-10 · 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, 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 disease and infection for 2 of 8 residents (Resident #14 and Resident #16) reviewed for infection control 1. The facility failed to ensure CNA D used appropriate hand hygiene between glove changes when providing incontinent care to Resident #14. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #16's catheter bag was not laying on the floor. These deficient practices could place residents at-risk for infection due to improper care practices. The findings included: 1. Record review of the admission Record, dated 1/8/25, reflected Resident #14 was a [AGE] year-old female originally admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included morbid severe obesity due to excess calories, chronic kidney disease stage 3 (the kidneys are moderately…
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 before2024-10-23 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide 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 interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents who required dialysis received such services, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for dialysis. Resident #1's did not have vital signs checked prior to leaving for dialysis on 10/4/24. This deficient practice could affect residents who received dialysis treatments and could result in inadequate care of dialysis treatment. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's admission Record, dated 10/22/24, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Acute Kidney Failure (condition in which kidneys suddenly are unable to filter waste from blood), Type 2 Diabetes (condition in which the body has trouble controlling blood sugar and using it for energy), and Hypertension (high blood pressure). Record review of Resident #1's Order Summary, dated 10/22/24, revealed an order for dialysis treatment on 10/4/24. Further review revealed…
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 before2024-07-12 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for 2 of 6 Residents (Resident #95 and Resident #104) whose MDS records were reviewed for accuracy. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #95's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] documented that Resident #95 received hospice services. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #104 Discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #104 was discharged home. This failure could place residents at risk of improper or incorrect care or services necessary for their physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being due to inaccurate assessments. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #95's face sheet dated 07/10/24, revealed Resident #95 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia (chronic health condition that affects how body turns food into energy), sepsis, unspecified organism, (body's extreme response 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 · D2024-07-12 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR) program under Medicaid in subpart C of this part to the maximum extent practicable to avoid duplicative testing and effort for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for PASRR (Resident #24). The facility failed to ensure Resident #24 had an accurate PASRR Level 1 Screening indicating diagnoses of mental illness and refer the residents to the state designated authority. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving needed assessments (PASRR Evaluation), individualized care, and specialized services to meet their needs. Findings included: Record Review of Resident #24's admission record, dated 7/11/24, revealed a [AGE] year-old male initially admitted [DATE] and with diagnoses including depression and insomnia. Record Review of Resident #24's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 5/16/24, reflected Resident #11 had intact cognition for daily decision making and had…
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 before2024-07-12 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for 1 (Resident #39) of 21 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans, in that: Resident #39's care plan was missing diagnoses and treatment information. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of receiving inadequate care and could result in a decline in health. The findings were: Record review of Resident #39's face sheet, dated 07/12/2024, revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including: Paraplegia, complete; Hypotension; and Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease without Esophagitis. Record review of Resident #39's clinical record, as of 07/12/2024, revealed the resident was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #39's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 06/30/2024, revealed a BIMS score of 15 which indicated intact cognition. Record review of Resident #39's care plan, revised 07/05/2024, revealed the care plan did not address the resident's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-12 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 it was free of medication error rate of 5 percent or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 8% based on 2 out of 25 opportunities, which involved 2 of 4 Residents (Residents #52 and Resident #69) reviewed for medication administration, in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure CMA A administered Resident #52's isosorbide mononitrate (medication use to prevent chest pain (angina) in patients with certain heart conditions). 2. The facility failed to ensure LVN B administered Resident #69's insulin aspart (fast-acting insulin that starts to work about 15 minutes after injection, peaks in about 1 hour, and keeps working for 2 to 4 hours) correctly. These failures could place residents at risk for not receiving the intended therapeutic effects of their medications and could contribute to possible adverse reactions. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #52's face sheet, dated 7/12/24 revealed a [AGE]…
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 before2024-07-12 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident that were-accurately documented for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #24) reviewed for accurate medical records in that: The facility failed to document Resident #24's medical diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) in his medical record. The deficient practices could affect residents who have medical records and could result in misinformation about professional care provided. The findings included: Record Review of Resident #24's admission record, dated 7/11/24, revealed a [AGE] year-old male initially admitted [DATE] and with diagnoses including depression and insomnia. Record Review of Resident #24's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 5/16/24, reflected Resident #24 had intact cognition for daily decision making and had depression. Record review of Resident #24's a physician's order dated 7/11/24 indicated Resident #24 took venlafaxine for depression. Record review of Resident #24's medical records from a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of infections involving 2 of 6 staff (LVN) reviewed for infection control, in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure LVN B cleaned a rubber stopper on an insulin pen prior to insulin administration for Resident #69. 2. The facility failed to ensure LVN C changed gloves while providing nephrostomy care to Resident #39. These deficient practices could place residents at-risk for infections. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #69's face sheet, dated 7/12/24, revealed a [AGE] year-old female, admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non dominate side (Hemiparesis is a common after-effect of stroke that causes weakness on one side of the body). During an observation on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-22 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to promote and maintain the residents' right to be treated with respect and dignity for 2 of 8 residents (Residents #2 and #3) reviewed for dignity and respect, in that: 1. The facility failed to provide Resident #2 assistance with eating his 03/21/24 lunch service for at least 10 minutes while he was waiting with food that was in front of him and other residents were able to eat. 2. The facility failed to allow Resident #3 to receive her food preferences and Resident #3 felt upset because she was not being heard or accommodated by the facility. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of psychosocial harm due to diminished self-image and could place residents needing assistance at risk for diminished quality of life, loss of dignity, and self-worth. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #2's admission record revealed an admission date of 02/23/2024 with diagnoses which included unspecified lack of coordination and…
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 before2024-03-22 · 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 2 of 8 residents (Resident #1 and #5) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to care plan Residents #1 and #5 allergies to lactose. This failure could have placed residents at risk of not having their needs identified and met. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #1's admission record revealed an admission date of 02/08/2024 with diagnoses which included gastrointestinal hemorrhage (gastrointestinal bleeding) and gastro-esophageal reflux disease with esophagitis (stomach acid repeatedly flows back into the tube connecting your mouth and stomach). Record review of Resident #1's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #1 had a BIMS of 05 out of 15…
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 · D2024-03-22 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
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 each resident received and the facility provided food that accommodated resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #1 and #4) reviewed for dietary services, in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #1's breakfast meal on 03/21/24 did not include any products with lactose as was read on her meal tray ticket. 2. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #4's lunch meal on 03/21/24 did not include mixed vegetables as was reflected on his lunch meal tray ticket. This deficient practice could affect residents with preferences/dislikes, and place them at-risk by contributing to poor intake and/or weight loss. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #1's admission record revealed an admission date of 02/08/2024 with diagnoses which included gastrointestinal hemorrhage (gastrointestinal bleeding) and gastro-esophageal reflux disease with esophagitis (stomach acid…
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 · D2024-01-19 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
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 residents who have authorized the facility in writing to manage any personal funds have access to those funds for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #4 and Resident #5) reviewed for personal funds. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4 and Resident #5 had access to their personal funds when requested. This failure could place residents whose funds are managed by the facility at risk of not receiving their personal funds deposited with the facility and not having their rights and preferences honored. Findings included: Record review of Resident #4's face sheet dated 1/19/2024 revealed an admission date of 10/18/2022 with diagnoses which included: schizoaffective disorder (a chronic mental illness involving symptoms of schizophrenia and characterized by symptoms such as delusions and hallucinations), hyperlipidemia (high fat levels in the blood), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (a condition that develops with the way the body regulates and uses sugar as…
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 · D2024-01-19 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure licensed nurses had the specific competencies and skill sets necessary to care for residents' needs, as described in the plan of care for 1 of 3 staff (RN A) reviewed for nursing competencies, in that: The facility failed to assess medication competencies for RN A prior to 1/06/2024 when RN A failed to follow physician orders for holding insulin glargine for a blood sugar less than 100. This failure could place residents at risk for not having medications accurately dispensed, not receiving the intended therapeutic effects of their medications and could contribute to possible adverse reactions. The findings included: Record review of RN A's Nursing Competency Skills Checklist dated 2/11/2023 and signed off by the DON revealed RN A was marked as competent to perform testing blood glucose, patient assessment, administering subcutaneous injections. Medication administration was not part of the competencies assessed. Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 1/11/2024 revealed an admission date of 12/27/2023 with…
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 before2024-01-19 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that are complete and accurately documented for 1 of 4 residents (Resident # 7) reviewed for accuracy of medical records in that: The facility failed to ensure RN A's signature matched her job title and nursing license. This deficient practice could affect residents whose records are maintained by the facility and could place improper identification of staff and role in the resident medical records. The findings included: Record review of the Texas Board of Nursing website at https://www.bon.texas.gov revealed: RN A's nursing license for registered nurse (RN was current with an expiration date of [DATE]. RN A's nursing license for LVN/LPN was delinquent and had expired on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated [DATE] revealed an admission date of [DATE] with diagnoses which included: type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia (elevated blood…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-01-05 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered care plan that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs for 1 of 12 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for comprehensive care plans, in that: The facility failed to amend Resident #2's care plan obtained on [DATE] promptly to include the use of a weighted blanket when it was implemented in [DATE]. This deficient practice could affect residents and place them at risk for not receiving appropriate treatment and services or activities. The findings were: Record review of Resident #2's face sheet, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Alzheimer's Disease [a progressive disease that affects memory and other important mental functions], unspecified, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with hyperglycemia [high sugar levels in the blood], mild protein-calorie malnutrition, gastrostomy status [an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-12-04 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for 6 of 6 residents (Residents #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7) reviewed for food meeting residents' needs, in that: Cook B did not ensure the pureed food placed on a plate was a pudding or mashed potato consistency as required for food served to residents who received a pureed diet. Cook B did not provide enough chicken for the 6 residents receiving pureed diets. This deficient practice could affect residents who received pureed meals from the kitchen by contributing to dissatisfaction, poor intake, choking, and/or weight loss. The findings included: Record review of menu for 11/29/2023 revealed the menu for the pureed meal for residents included pureed beef tips with gravy, pureed green beans, pureed egg noodles, apple sauce, and a beverage. Record review of the electronic health records dated 12/04/2023 revealed for Residents #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 they all had the following diet order: Regular diet, Pureed texture, Thin Liquids…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-12-04 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 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, in that: The facility failed to ensure proper dating and labeling of dry foods and refrigerator items. The facility failed to ensure residents eating over easy eggs were given pasteurized eggs. This failure could place residents who received meals and/or snacks from the kitchen at risk for food borne illness. The findings were: Observation on 11/28/2023 at 11:45 a. m.- Spices- Found above the preparation area, on the shelf, 3 large containers of onion powder, parsley and cinnamon open but not dated. There were 9 small bottles of spice 16 oz to 21 oz open and not dated. There was ground cumin, dill weed, cayenne pepper, caldo de [NAME], 2 containers of chicken flavored base, 1 container of beef flavored base, 1 bottle of soy sauce not dated or labeled and 1- 16 oz spice container no date and the label was torn…
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 before2023-12-04 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and restore continence to the extent possible, for 1 of 1 Residents (Resident #1) reviewed for perineal/incontinent care, in that: CNA A failed to clean between Resident #1's vaginal folds during incontinent/peri care. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of increased urinary tract infections and skin breakdown due to improper care. The findings included: Record review of Resident #76's face sheet, dated 9/22/23 revealed an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included urinary tract infection, seizures, epilepsy (happens as a result of abnormal electrical brain activity, also known as a seizure, kind of like an electrical storm inside your head.), contracture (condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-10-18 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 the medication error rate was not five percent or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 11% based on 4 errors out of 36 opportunities, which involved 2 of 6 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for medication errors. - CMA A failed to administer medications as ordered to Resident #1 by administering Baclofen (a treatment for muscle spasms), Lithostat (a treatment for UTI), and Gabapentin (a treatment for nerve pain) 1 hour and 15 minutes after the scheduled time. - CMA A failed to administer a medication as ordered to Resident #2 by administering Protonix (a treatment for GERD) 1 hour and 23 minutes after the scheduled time. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving the desired therapeutic effect of their medications and uncontrolled pain. Findings included: Resident #1 Record review of Resident #1's admission Record, dated 10/17/2023, revealed the resident was a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-05-19 · 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, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen and 1 of 3 food carts reviewed for kitchen sanitation in that: 1. The kitchen was soiled, dietary staff did not properly wash their hands, and food was not appropriately stored. 2. The 100-hall food cart had two lunch trays with food that was uncovered. These deficient practices could place residents who received meals from the main kitchen at risk for foodborne illness. The findings were: 1. Observation in the facility kitchen on 05/19/2023 between 11:45 a.m. and 12:10 p.m. revealed: *a container of powdered potatoes was located on a shelf above the sink in the food preparation are. The container was open and undated. *a buildup of a substance which appeared to be sand or dirt was located under the sink in the food preparation area. *caulking behind the sink and counter in the food preparation area was soiled and appeared black in color. *the frying station in the food preparation…
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 before2023-05-19 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who is incontinent of bladder receives appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #44) reviewed for catheter/perineal care, in that: CNA F used multiple passes with the same wipe while providing catheter/perineal care to Resident #44. This deficient practice could place residents at-risk for infection and skin break down due to improper care practices. The findings were: Record review of Resident #44's face sheet, dated 5/19/23 revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes (a chronic, long-lasting health condition that affects how your body turns food into energy), heart failure, colostomy status (an opening created for the colon or large intestine through the abdomen wall) and urinary tract infection. Record review of Resident #44's most…
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 before2023-05-19 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide 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 observation, 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 of 2 residents (Resident #33) reviewed for dialysis in that: The facility did not maintain communication, coordination and collaboration with the dialysis facility for Resident #33. This deficient practice could affect residents who received dialysis treatments and place them at risk for complications and not receiving proper care and treatment to meet their needs. The findings were: Record review of Resident #33's face sheet, dated 5/19/23 revealed a [AGE] year old female admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included end stage renal disease (condition in which the kidneys cease functioning on a permanent basis), acute angle-closure glaucoma (an ocular emergency that results from a rapid decrease in intraocular pressure due to outflow obstruction), type 2 diabetes (a chronic, long-lasting…
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 before2023-05-19 · 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 1 of 2 residents (Resident #44) reviewed for infection control practices, in that: CNA F and CNA G failed to utilize appropriate hand hygiene and infection control practices during catheter/perineal care to Resident #44. These failures could place residents who required catheter/perineal care at risk for infection and or a decline in health. The findings were: Record review of Resident #44's face sheet, dated 5/19/23 revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes (a chronic, long-lasting health condition that affects how your body turns food into energy), heart failure, colostomy status (an opening created for the colon or large intestine…
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 · C2024-03-22 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — widespreadEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed for 1 of 3 meals observed in that: The lunch meal for 03/21/24 included mushrooms in a Chicken Enchilada Casserole that was not called for in this recipe. This failure could affect residents by contributing to dissatisfaction, poor intake, and weight loss. The findings included: Record Review of the recipe for Chicken Enchilada Casserole did not include mushrooms in it's list of Ingredients. Record Review of the facility's menu on 03/21/24 revealed lunch was to include Chicken Quesadilla casserole. During observation and interview on 03/21/24 at 01:30 PM of lunch meal revealed the Chicken Enchilada Casserole had mushrooms in it. The Dietary Supervisor confirmed 03/21/24 included Chicken Enchilada Casserole. During an interview on 03/22/24 at 01:44 PM, the Dietary Supervisor revealed he would sometimes not follow the recipes to make the foods elevated. He also revealed it was important for residents to be fed appropriately and encourage intake, so they receive the appropriate…
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
$66,531 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $36,553 — penalty dated 2025-01-10
- $22,382 — penalty dated 2024-02-09
- $7,596 — penalty dated 2023-12-04
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 THE ENSIGN GROUP — 342 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 | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 341 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 341; 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GUADALUPE COUNTY HOSPITAL BOARD | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 11/01/2019 |
| BRADY, SHANE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2019 |
| GIVENS, LAURA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2020 |
| BURNAM, SOON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 11/01/2019 |
| GANN, KODY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 02/01/2021 |
| KEETCH, CHAD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/01/2011 |
| CANARY BEND HEALTHCARE, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/03/2025 |
| ENSIGN SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/19/2019 |
| PADUA HEALTH HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2019 |
| STANDARD BEARER HEALTHCARE OP, LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2019 |
| THE ENSIGN GROUP INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
6 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 70% 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 $996K 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 676331. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-13, 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.