Morningside Manor

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

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.

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.

49.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 87 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 68.2% 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 44 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 0.36 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 62% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 47% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 147 beds and averages 72.6 residents a day — about 49% occupied, or roughly 74 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.60 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.36 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.97 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.45 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.66 on weekdays — 6% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.35 to 0.38 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 16% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.

26 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 16 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · D2026-04-11 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
  Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
  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 have evidence that all alleged violations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment were thoroughly investigated to prevent further potential abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment while the investigation was in progress for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for neglect. The facility failed to ensure the previous Executive Director A followed the facility's Abuse Prevention Program policy, when she did not complete an investigation of neglect that involved Resident #1 and did not submit a 3613A Provider Investigation Report to HHSC. This failure could place residents at risk of not being provided with services to meet their needs or prevent them from being neglected.Findings include: Record review of Resident #1's admission Record, dated 04/11/2026, revealed the resident was an [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included diabetes (chronic condition characterized…

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

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-04-11 · tag F0638 — isolated
  Assure 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 a resident using the quarterly review instrument specified by the State and approved by CMS not less frequently than once every three months for 1 of 4 (Resident #4) residents reviewed for MDS assessments. The facility failed to complete Resident #4's Quarterly MDS Assessment within three months of their most recent comprehensive assessment. This failure could lead to residents not receiving necessary, complete, or correct care due to lack of current information for their care plans. Findings included: Record review of Resident #4's admission Record, dated 04/11/2026, revealed the resident was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included spinal stenosis (narrowing of the spinal canal compressing nerves causing pain, numbness and leg cramping), diabetes (chronic condition characterized by high blood sugar levels cause by insulin resistance or lack of insulin production), anemia (low levels 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-08-07 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — pattern
  Allow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
  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's right to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care, including but not limited to: The right to participate in the planning process, including the right to identify individuals or roles to be included in the planning process, the right to request meetings and the right to request revisions to the person-centered plan of care. The right to participate in establishing the with the resident and the resident's representative for 3 of 5 residents (Resident #8, Resident #48, and Resident #69) reviewed for Comprehensive Care Plans in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #8, Resident#48, and Resident #69 or the resident's representative were invited to participate in the residents' care plan meeting. This failure placed residents at risk for a loss of independence, psychosocial well-being, and the opportunity for them to participate in the planning of their care. Findings include:…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-08-07 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — pattern
  Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident had a right to secure and confidential personal and medical records for 6 (Residents #7, #9, #45, #61, #69, & #74) of 7 residents reviewed for privacy and confidentiality The facility failed to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of resident's clinical records that were not left on top of a treatment cart face up in the hallway unattended from 11:30 AM to 11:57 AM, for Resident #7, #9, #45, #61, #69, & #74 on 08/7/25. This deficient practice could place residents at-risk of loss of dignity due to lack of privacy and confidentiality. Findings included: Record review of Resident #7's face sheet, dated 8/7/25, revealed a [AGE] year-old male with an initial admission of 09/14/23 and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. His primary diagnosis was Altered mental Status, other diagnosis included Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus infection as the cause of diseases classified elsewhere (MRSA is a type of bacteria…

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

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-08-07 · tag F0641 — pattern
  Ensure 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 the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 (Resident #8) of 5 residents reviewed for quality of care. 1. The facility failed to accurately assess Resident #8's bowel and bladder status. 2. The facility failed to accurately access Resident #8's ability to voice her bowel and bladder needs. These failures could place resident with having inaccurate care plans and inappropriate identification of care needs. Findings included: Review of Resident #8's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included: Unspecified Injury of Head, Subsequent Encounter (a healthcare visit that occurs after the initial active treatment of a condition or injury; Type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications (a chronic condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar - glucose); Essential (Primary) Hypertension (high blood pressure that is…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-08-07 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — pattern
  Ensure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
  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 enteral feeding physician orders were followed for 1 (Resident #12) of 7 resident reviewed for enteral tube feeding, in that: The facility failed to assess, obtain physician order, care plan, and obtain consent for Resident #12 to self-administer her bolus feedings via the g-tube two times a day. This failure could place residents with G-tubes at risk of needs not met and a decline in resident's health. Findings included: Record review of Resident #12's face sheet dated 8/14/25 revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses were cirrhosis of the liver (chronic liver damage from a variety of causes leading to scarring and liver failure), type 2 diabetes, breast cancer, neoplasm of uncertain behavior of pharynx (throat cancer), and difficulty swallowing. Review of Resident #12's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] reflected Resident #12 had a BIMS of 15, indicating cognitive intact. She makes…

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

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-08-07 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — pattern
  Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 3 of 9 reviewed for pharmaceutical services, in that: LVN A administered the expired insulin to Resident #4, Resident #22, and Resident #74. This failure could result in residents not receiving an accurate dose of medication as well as not being maintained at their best therapeutic level.Findings included: Review of Resident #4's face sheet, dated 8/6/2025, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of type 2 diabetes and stroke. Review of Resident #4's active order list, there was an order for Lantus Solostar Subcutaneous Solution Pen-injector 100unit/ml (insulin Glargine), start date 3/8/2025. Review of Resident #22's face sheet, dated 8/6/2025, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted 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.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-08-07 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — pattern
  Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to label drugs and biologicals used in the facility in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable for 1 of 5 medication carts in that: Two insulin pens were not labeled with an open date in Unit 5 nurse med cart.Two insulin pens were expired in Unit 5 nurse med cart. These failures could result in residents not receiving an accurate dose of medication as well as not being maintained at their best therapeutic level.Findings included: Observation of Unit 5 med cart on 8/6/2025 at 9:06am revealed there were 2 insulin pens for Resident #4 and Resident #74 that did not have an open date on them. There were also 1 insulin pen for Resident #74 that was opened on 5/23/2025 and 1 insulin pen for Resident #22 that was opened on 6.24 In an interview with LVN A on 8/6/2025 at 9:07am, he stated that insulin pens should be labeled with an open date and once opened, the insulin pen should be discarded…

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

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-08-07 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — pattern
  Dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility must properly dispose of garbage and rubbish in accordance with current state laws for dumpster 1 of 2 reviewed for garbage disposal. The facility failed to ensure the doors on dumpster 1 were secured. This failure could place residents at risk of contracting disease by attracting pest and disease carrying rodents. Findings included: Observation on 08/05/25 at 8:36 AM, reflected the facility's dumpster area, which was outside of the dietary department to the right side of the parking lot were two commercial size dumpsters. Dumpster 1 had the left and right-side doors open which were 1/2 full of garbage. Interview on 08/05/25 at 8:40 AM, reflected the KD stated the dumpsters were for the entire facility and not just the kitchen. He stated the lids and doors on the dumpsters were supposed to be closed to keep all trash contained. He stated that the risk of the dumpster doors being opened could attract rodents. Interview on 08/05/25 at 3:31 PM, the FSS stated the kitchen and housekeeping were responsible for making sure…

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

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-07 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 16 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan with interventions to address Resident #1's use of anti-coagulant medication, bed rails, and walker. This failure could have placed residents at risk of not having their needs identified and met. The findings included: Record review of Resident #1's admission Record/Face Sheet, dated 08/06/2025, revealed an [AGE] year-old female who originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with most recent admission on [DATE]. Resident #1 was noted to have diagnoses of Alzheimer's Disease (a progressive brain condition that slowly damages your memory,…

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

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Fines & penalties

$5,000 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $5,000 — penalty dated 2025-08-14

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.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 60 rows in the source record cover these 39 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

5 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in TX