Patriot Heights Health Care Center
5000 Fawn Meadow, San Antonio, TX 78240 · For profit - Corporation · 74 certified beds · (210) 696-6005 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Oct 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors recorded 3 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (25) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $28,033 in federal fines (most recent 2025-10-31)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| 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 held steady at 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 12.3% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.7% | 3.0% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 1.2% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 2.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.2% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.1% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.2% | 18.0% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.7% | 3.8% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.5% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.2% | 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 | 89.7% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
52.7% 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 41 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 95.5% 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 22 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 0.78 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 94% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| 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 | 52.7%CMS range 39.4–62.1 | 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 | 12.2%CMS range 9.1–16.6 | 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 | 95.5% | 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 | 81.8% | 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 | 90.9% | 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 | 88.6% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 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 4.2–13.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.01 | 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 74 beds and averages 57.3 residents a day — about 77% occupied, or roughly 17 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.46 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.38 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.88 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 2.95 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.66 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.41 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 50% 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 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.
25 citations, most serious first. The 13 most serious are shown; the remaining 12 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-10-31 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident had the right to be free from abuse and neglect for 2 of 6 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for resident abuse. The facility failed to ensure a safe environment free from sexual abuse when Resident #1, who had a history of alleged sexual behaviors, placed his mouth on Resident #2's breast on 10/28/2025 at 04:15 p.m. The noncompliance was identified as past non-compliance IJ. The IJ began on 10/28/2025 and ended on 10/29/2025. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began, 10/29/2025 at 12:30 p.m. This failure could place residents at risk of physical harm, pain, mental anguish, and/or emotional distress. The findings included: Resident #1 Record review of Resident #1's admission Record, dated 10/29/2025, revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE]. Resident #1 was noted to have two contacts listed, including his [family member]. MD C was noted as his attending…
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 · Jcited before2024-01-25 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the 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 interview and record review the facility failed to immediately consult with the resident's physician and notify, consistent with his or her authority, the resident representative when there was an accident with potential for requiring physician intervention for 1 of 6 Residents (Resident #1) whose records were reviewed for accidents. LVN A failed to notify Resident #1's physician and representative when he had a fall on 9/18/23 which resulted in a delay of care. The facility failed to consult the physician when the mobile x-ray did not arrive timely to take the x-ray resulting in Resident #1 waiting 15 1/2 hours for his x-ray to be taken. Resident #1 was hospitalized on [DATE], was diagnosed with a right hip fracture and admitted for surgery. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance Immediate Jeopardy (IJ). The noncompliance began on 9/18/23 and ended on 11/30/23. This deficient practice could contribute to residents not receiving the medical care and treatment needed and a decline in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-01-25 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's choices for 1 of 6 Residents (Resident #1) reviewed for treatments and services. LVN A failed to ensure Resident #1 received appropriate assessments and interventions when he had a fall on 9/18/2023, which she did not report as a fall to an oncoming nurse, DON or Administrator. The facility failed to consult the physician when the mobile x-ray did not arrive timely to take the x-ray resulting in Resident #1 waiting 15 1/2 hours for his x-ray to be taken. Resident #1 was hospitalized the following day on 9/19/2023 and diagnosed with a right hip fracture. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance Immediate Jeopardy (IJ). The noncompliance began on 9/18/2023 and ended on 11/30/23. This deficient practice could contribute to residents not receiving the necessary medical…
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 before2026-05-06 · 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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that the resident's environment remained free of accidents and hazards as was possible and each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents.The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's fall mat was utilized per the comprehensive care plan.This failure could place residents at risk for accidents and injuries related to risk of falls.The findings included:Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 5/5/26 reflected an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia with behavioral disturbance, anxiety disorder, and history of falling.Record review of Resident #1's most recent admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected the resident was severely cognitively impaired for daily decision-making skills, required substantial/maximal assistance with mobility, and had reports of falls without injury.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 · Dcited before2026-05-06 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments under proper temperature controls and permitted only authorized personnel to have access for 1 of 5 Residents (Resident #2) reviewed for medication storage:The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 did not have a container of antifungal powder at the bedside.This deficient practice could affect residents who received medications in the facility and place them at risk for not receiving the correct medications, medication misuse or drug diversion.The findings included:Record review of Resident #2's face sheet dated 5/5/26 reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cellulitis of right lower limb, morbid obesity due to excess calories, bacterial infection, and age-related physical debility.Record review of Resident #2's comprehensive care plan with revision date 4/23/26 reflected the resident had fungal moisture…
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 before2025-09-05 · 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 the resident assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 3 of 6 residents (Resident #19, Resident #51, and Resident #55) who were reviewed for resident assessments. 1. The facility failed to document Resident #19's use of pain medication on the MDS assessment.2. The facility failed to document Resident #51's use of hypoglycemic medication on the MDS assessment.3. The facility failed to document Resident #55's use of antiplatelet medication on MDS assessment.This failure could place residents at risk of improper or incorrect care and services necessary for their physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.The findings included:1. Record review of Resident #19's admission sheet dated 10/08/24 with an original date of 6/23/21 documented a [AGE] year-old female with diagnoses including cerebral infarction (stroke), hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol), seizures, dementia, hypothyroidism (when the thyroid gland does not produce enough…
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 · D2025-09-05 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents for 1 (West Hall) of 8 shower rooms observed for environment. The facility failed to ensure resident shower room on the [NAME] Hall was clean, safe, and in good repair. This failure could place residents at risk for diminished quality of life due to the lack of a well-kept environment. Findings included: Observations made on 9/2/2025, 9/4/2025 and 9/4/2025 of resident room shower in the west hall revealed a missing shower tile in the resident room shower. The Maintenance Director interviewed on 9/4/2025 at 10:40 am. They stated that whoever sees an issue that requires maintenance attention, a work order is supposed to be entered, and that they also inform them verbally, then a work order was issued and completed. They stated that resident rooms should be inspected daily. They stated that the issue with missing tile was it could lead to structural damage if not fixed. Interview with the Administrator on 9/4/2025 at 11:00 am, he…
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 · D2025-07-16 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all allegations misappropriation were reported to the State Survey Agency no later than 24 hours after misappropriation was alleged for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for misappropriation of resident property. The facility failed to report to HHSC when Resident #1's lost gold wedding ring, which was reported missing on [DATE], a replacement was provided on 04-09-2025 the facility did not report to HHSC within 24 hours. This failure could place residents at risk of misappropriation of money, possessions, and feelings of loss.The findings included:Record review of Resident #1's Face Sheet, dated [DATE], reflected a [AGE] year-old resident with an initial admission date of [DATE], with a most recent admission on [DATE], and diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD; a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia (respiratory…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-07-31 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature controls and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys, for 1 of 4 medication carts (treatment cart) reviewed for drug security and 2 of 13 residents (Resident #16 and Resident #41) reviewed for medications at the bedside. 1. Facility treatment cart was left unattended and unlocked at the North-hall on [DATE] at 9:52 a.m. 2. Resident #16's Triad Hydrophilic wound dressing cream was left unattended and unsecured on the nightstand at the resident's bedside. 3. South-hall nursing cart had Resident #41's insulin pen with open date [DATE], but DON said Novolog insulin pen should have been discarded after 28 days once it was opened. This failure could place residents at risk for misappropriation of property and could place residents at risk for accidents, hazards, and not receiving therapeutic effects. The findings included: 1. 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 · Dcited before2024-07-31 · 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 1 of 13 Residents (Resident #4) whose MDS records were reviewed for accuracy. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/17/2024, accurately reflected the resident had a significant weight loss. This failure could place residents at risk for inadequate care due to inaccurate assessments. The findings included: Record review of Resident #4's electronic face sheet, dated 07/31/2024, reflected the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #4's diagnoses included: urinary tract infection (bladder infection), protein-calorie malnutrition (the state of inadequate intake of food as a source of protein, calories, and other essential nutrients), kidney failure (kidneys stop working), hypokalemia (below normal in potassium), and dementia (a group of symptoms affecting memory, thinking and social abilities).…
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 before2024-07-31 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who needed respiratory care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, for 1 of 2 residents (Residents #11) reviewed for respiratory treatment in that: Resident #11's nebulizing mask and tubing were observed on 07/28/2024, and it was covered in a plastic bag but dated on 05/12/2024. This failure could affect residents who received nebulizing treatment by placing them at risk for respiratory infections. The findings included: Record review of Resident #11's electronic face sheet, dated 07/31/2024, reflected the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses included: cerebral infarction (damage to tissues in the brain), dementia (a group of symptoms affecting memory, thinking and social abilities), atherosclerotic heart disease (damage or disease in the heart's major blood vessels), asthma (a person's airways become inflamed, narrow and swell, and produce extra mucus,…
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 · D2024-07-31 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of any significant medication errors for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for medication administration. During medication administration observation on 07/30/2024, MA hold Resident #1's Metoprolol Tartrate 25 mg because of low blood pressure (118/50), but the MA did not notify holding the medication to the charge nurse, LVN D. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving the therapeutic effects of their prescribed medications. The findings included: Record review of Resident #1's electronic face sheet, dated 07/31/2024, reflected the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses included: urinary tract infection (bladder infection), type 2 diabetes mellitus (trouble controlling blood sugar), hypertensive (high blood pressure), chronic atrial fibrillation (abnormal heart rhythm), chronic kidney disease state 3 (damage to or disease of 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 · D2024-07-31 · tag F0813 — isolatedHave a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors.
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 enact a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors to ensure safe and sanitary storage, handling, and consumption, for 1 (Resident #1) of 13 residents reviewed, in that: Resident #1's personal refrigerator located in his room was observed on 07/28/2024, and there was a small plastic container inside the refrigerator with olives, but no date on the plastic container. The findings included: Record review of Resident #1's electronic face sheet, dated 07/31/2024, reflected the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses included: urinary tract infection (bladder infection), type 2 diabetes mellitus (trouble controlling blood sugar), hypertensive (high blood pressure), chronic atrial fibrillation (abnormal heart rhythm), chronic kidney disease state 3 (damage to or disease of a kidney), and hyperlipidemia (high levels of fat). Record review…
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 12 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-31 · 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 review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records on each resident that were complete and accurately documented in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices for 1 (Resident #1) of 13 residents reviewed for accuracy and completeness of clinical records. LVN D did not document Resident #1's refusal of wound care on 07/04/2024 to the resident's treatment administration record. This failure placed facility residents at risk for lack of wound care or incorrect wound care due to misinformation by incomplete and inaccurate medical record. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's electronic face sheet, dated 07/31/2024, reflected the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses included: urinary tract infection (bladder infection), type 2 diabetes mellitus (trouble controlling blood sugar), hypertensive (high blood pressure), chronic atrial fibrillation (abnormal heart rhythm), chronic kidney disease…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-15 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents who needed respiratory care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan and the residents goals and preferences for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #2 and #3) reviewed for respiratory care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's oxygen tubing and concentrator humidifier with connected tubing was not on the floor. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3's oxygen tubing was not on the floor. These deficient practices could place residents at risk of cross contamination, infections, receiving incorrect or inadequate oxygen support and could result in a decline in health. The findings were: 1. Record review of Resident # 2's face sheet reflected he is a [AGE] year old male with an admission date of 05/15/2023 and a readmission date of 12/27/2023. Resident #2 had diagnoses which included chronic pain syndrome (pain that encompasses a range 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 · D2024-01-25 · tag F0626 — isolatedPermit a resident to return to the nursing home after hospitalization or therapeutic leave that exceeds bed-hold policy.
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 establish and follow a written policy on permitting residents to return to the facility after being hospitalized for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for transfer/discharge. The facility failed to readmit Resident #2 after an acute care hospital stay resulting in Resident #2 not being permitted to stay in the facility pending placement or appeal. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of being discharged and not allowed to return to the facility causing a disruption in their care and services and potential decline in health. Findings included: Record review of Resident #2's face sheet dated 1/4/24 revealed an [AGE] year old male resident admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of unspecified cirrhosis of the liver (scarring of the liver interfering with liver function), major depressive disorder (a mental health disorder of persistent depressed mood), and suicidal ideations (thinking about or planning suicide). Record review of Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-12-23 · 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 medical records, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, which were complete and accurate for two of five residents (Residents #1 and #2) reviewed for accuracy of records, in that: 1. Resident #1's physician orders for [DATE] had both full code and DNR listed as the resident's code status. 2. Resident #2's consent for the anti-depressant medication Sertraline was placed in Resident #1's EMR. These failures could place residents at risk of not having accurate medical records and could create confusion in services provided or needed to be provided. The findings included: 1. Closed record review of Resident #1's face sheet, accessed on [DATE], and EMR revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including: Quadriplegia (a symptom of paralysis that affects all a person's limbs and body from the neck down), pneumocystosis (fungal infection that causes cough, difficulty breathing 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 · E2023-10-05 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — patternEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
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 each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary medications (excessive dose and duplicative therapy) for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for unnecessary medication in that: Resident #1 received two types of blood thinners from 9/22/23 to 9/27/23. This failure could affect residents who receive blood thinner medications and place them at risk for adverse drug reaction and being over-medicated. The findings were: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 10/3/23, revealed Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of atherosclerosis [buildup of fats in the arterial walls] of native arteries of other extremities with ulceration, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy [nerve damage due to diabetes], unspecified, hypertensive chronic kidney disease [high blood pressure caused by kidney disease] with stage 1 through stage 4 chronic kidney disease, or unspecified chronic…
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 · D2023-10-05 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident, for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for drug administration in that: Resident #1 did not receive his morning insulin dose on 10/1/23. This failure could affect residents who receive insulin and place them at risk for not receiving a therapeutic effect. The findings were: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 10/3/23, revealed Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of atherosclerosis [buildup of fats in the arterial walls] of native arteries of other extremities with ulceration, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy [nerve damage due to diabetes], unspecified, hypertensive chronic kidney disease [high blood pressure caused by kidney disease] with stage 1 through stage 4 chronic…
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 before2023-09-20 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the 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 interview and record review the facility failed to immediately inform the resident's responsible party when there was a significant change in the resident's physical mental or psychological status for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #1) reviewed for notification of change of condition. The facility failed to notify Resident #1's responsible party when Resident #1 sustained a fall following major hip surgery. This failure placed residents at risk of not being aware of any changes in their conditions and could result in the decline of the residents' health and well-being. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses include fracture of unspecified party of neck of right femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, unspecified dementia, pain in right hip, and personal history of (healed) traumatic fracture. Record review of Resident #1's Comprehensive MDS, dated [DATE], revealed: Resident #1 had a BIMS…
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 before2023-09-20 · 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 observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible for one resident (#1) out of 5 residents reviewed for accident hazards in that: Resident #1's bed was left in a high position following a recent fall with contradicted interventions stated in Resident #1's care plan. This deficient practice could affect residents and could result in injury. The findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses include fracture of unspecified party of neck of right femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, unspecified dementia, pain in right hip, and personal history of (healed) traumatic fracture. Record review of Resident #1's Comprehensive MDS, dated [DATE], revealed: Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 3 (severe cognitive impairment), PHQ9 Score (moderate depression), and required extensive two+ person physical…
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 · D2023-05-26 · 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 treat each resident with respect and dignity and care in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #28) reviewed for resident rights, in that: LVN A obtained a blood sugar check and administered an insulin injection to Resident #28 while the resident was in the dining room participating in an activity. This failure could place residents needing assistance at risk for diminished quality of life, loss of dignity and self-worth. The findings were: Record review of Resident #28's face sheet, dated 5/26/23 revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction (occurs as a result of disrupted blood flow to the brain due to problems with the blood vessels that supply it), unspecified viral Hepatitis C (liver infection caused by hepatitis C virus, spread through contact with blood from…
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 before2023-05-26 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with the comprehensive person-centered care plan and in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for quality of care (Resident #202). The facility did not maintain physician orders and medical information needed to monitor Resident #202's cardiac pacemaker (electronic device that is implanted in the body to monitor heart rate and rhythm that stimulates the heart with electrical impulses to maintain or restore a normal heartbeat) parameters for proper functioning. This failure could place residents of risk for not receiving proper care and treatment. The findings included: Record review of Resident #202's face sheet, dated 5/26/2023 revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted [DATE] with diagnoses of; streptococcal infection, type 2 diabetes, cirrhosis of liver (liver damage), ulcerative colitis (inflammation of the large intestine), sequelae of cerebral infarction…
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 · D2023-05-26 · 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 #28) reviewed for infection control practices, in that: LVN A administered an insulin injection to Resident #28 in the dining room without performing hand hygiene or using gloves This failure could place residents at risk for infection, transmission for communicable diseases and or a decline in health The findings were: Record review of Resident #28's face sheet, dated 5/26/23 revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction (occurs as a result of disrupted blood flow to the brain due to problems with the blood vessels that supply it), unspecified viral Hepatitis C (liver infection caused by hepatitis C virus,…
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 · B2023-05-26 · tag F0640 — patternEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was electronically completed and transmitted to the CMS System within 14 days after completion for 2 of 2 Residents (Residents #23 and #39) reviewed for transmitting assessments in that: 1. Resident #23's quarterly MDS assessment was not completed and transmitted within 14 days of completion. 2. Resident #39's quarterly MDS assessment was not completed and transmitted within 14 days of completion. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not having records completed and submitted to the CMS system in a timely manner as required. The findings were: 1. Record review of Resident #23's face sheet, dated 5/25/23 revealed a [AGE] year old male admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included flaccid hemiplegia affecting right non-dominant side (severe or complete loss of motor function on one side of the body), type 2 diabetes (a chronic, long-lasting health condition that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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
$28,033 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $15,129 — penalty dated 2025-10-31
- $12,904 — penalty dated 2023-12-23
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to 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 | 2 of 5 | 3.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.7 | -1.7 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| KEYSTONE CARE LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 10/02/2019 |
| THE ENSIGN GROUP INC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2022 |
| BREWER, DEVIN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/06/2024 |
| VU, VU | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/04/2022 |
| BURNAM, SOON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/02/2019 |
| ASHTON, ANDREW | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/08/2025 |
| KEETCH, CHAD | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/08/2025 |
| PORT, BARRY | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/08/2025 |
| ENSIGN SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
| FAWN MEADOWS HEALTH HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2022 |
| STANDARD BEARER HEALTHCARE OP, LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2022 |
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. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
This home reported $653K 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 455969. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-05, 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.