San Jose Nursing Center
406 Sharmain Pl, San Antonio, TX 78221 · For profit - Corporation · 55 certified beds · (210) 924-8136 Medicaid only — no Medicare
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (33) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 fell from 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 13.6% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.8% | 3.0% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.9% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.6% | 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 | 2.3% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.0% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 32.5% | 18.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.7% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.3% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 6.9% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 27.8% | 9.6% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.95 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.49 | 2.06 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.42 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 72% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| 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 — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
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 55 beds and averages 38.8 residents a day — about 71% occupied, or roughly 16 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 3.16 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.44 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 2.96 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.24 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.43 to 0.44 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
33 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 23 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-19 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for incontinence care. When CNA-A was providing incontinent care to Resident #1 on 06/18/2026, CNA-A did not clean the resident's suprapubic area (the area of the abdomen located below the umbilical region) and left buttock area. This failure could place residents who required incontinence care at risk for cross contamination and the development of new or worsening urinary tract infections. The findings included:Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 12/04/2025, revealed Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old female and admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of Parkinson's disease (disorder of the nervous system that affects movement and gets worse over time), retention of urine (a condition in which…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-04-11 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 revise residents comprehensive care plan for 4 of 12 Residents (Resident #4, Resident #19, Resident #27 and Resident #30) reviewed for Comprehensive Resident Centered Care Plan. 1. The facility failed to revise Resident #4's Care Plan for the use of 1/2 SR and to provide timeframe's for the review period. 2. The facility failed to revise Resident #19's care plan for diet and care plan interventions after weight loss. 3. The facility failed to revise Resident #27's Care Plan for the use of 1/2 SR. 4. The facility failed to revise Resident #30's care plan interventions for physical restraint. These deficient practices could affect any resident and could contribute to resident's not receiving needed care and services as identified in the residents medical record and or MDS. The findings were: 1. Review of Resident #4's annual MDS assessment, dated 2/6/25, revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His BIMS score was 2 of 15 reflective of severe…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-04-11 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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 attempt to use appropriate alternatives prior to installing a side or bed rail and review the risks and benefits of bed rails with the resident or resident representative for 4 of 7 Residents (Resident #4, Resident #14, Resident #17 and Resident #27) whose records were reviewed. 1. Nursing staff failed to attempt to use the least restrictive alternatives before using a 1/2 SR for Resident #4. They also failed to indicate the benefits and risks for using a 1/2 SR or to assess Resident #4 for its use. 2. Nursing staff failed to obtain a consent for the use of 1/2 SR for Resident #14 and failed to assess her once a 1/2 SR was implemented. 3. Nursing staff failed to obtain a consent or to assess Resident #17 for the use of 1/2 SR. 4. Nursing staff failed to attempt to use least restrictive alternatives before using 1/2 SR for Resident #27, to indicate the benefits and risks for using 1/2 SR and failed to assess him for use. These deficient…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-04-11 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 based on a comprehensive assessment of a resident failed to ensure residents who have not used psychotropic drugs are not given these drugs unless the medication is necessary to treat a specific condition as diagnosed and documented in the clinical record for 2 of 7 Residents (Resident #4 and Resident #35) whose records were reviewed for psychotropic medications. 1. Nursing staff failed to ensure Resident #4's informed consent for Haldol (anti-psychotic medication) included the psychiatric condition, assessment for the use of the medication, the risks and benefits and the need for the use of the medication. 2. Nursing staff failed to ensure Resident #35's informed consent for Seroquel (antipsychotic medication), failed to identify the condition being treated and the potential beneficial side effects of the use of the medication. These deficient practices could affect residents who were receiving psychoactive medications and contribute to the administration 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 · E2025-04-11 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review the menus were not followed, were not updated periodically and were not reviewed by the facility's dietician in 1 of 1 kitchen. 1. Dietary Staff failed to follow the menu on 04/08/25 for 1 of 1 meal; lunch meal. 2. The facility failed to ensure the Dietician reviewed the updated facility menus at the time the menus were made available. for about 5 months These deficient practices could affect all residents and could contribute to residents not being satisfied with their meal options. The findings were: 1. Observation on 04/08/25 at 09:15 AM revealed the monthly menu at a glance for April 2025 was not posted outside the kitchen or around the dining room. Observation on 04/08/25 at 12:18 PM revealed Dietary Staff serving baked ham, pinto beans, mixed vegetables, canned fruit and tea/water. Review of the menu (followed for 04/08/25 included baked ham, pirogues, mixed vegetables, canned fruit and tea/water. Interview on 04/08/25 at 2:45 PM with the FSS revealed she did not post the monthly menu at a glance for April 2025. She stated she…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-04-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen. The facility failed to serve the cold chicken penne pasta salad and the mechanical vegetable mixture at 41 F or below for the evening meal service. This failure could place residents at risk for food borne illness. The findings were: In an interview on 04/11/2025 at 5:00 PM, [NAME] A reported the evening meal consisted of a cold plate of a chicken penne pasta salad and soup. [NAME] A stated she had cooked the chicken and pasta earlier in the afternoon for the evening meal and placed them in the refrigerator to cool down, then placed the chicken penne pasta salad on ice on the steamtable. Observation on 04/11/2025 at 5:01 PM reveaked [NAME] A took the temperatures of the food on the steamtable with a thermometer. The temperature of the chicken penne pasta salad was 62 degrees F and the mechanical vegetable mixture of cooked broccoli, cauliflower, and carrots was 70 degrees F. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-11 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #26), reviewed for resident rights. Resident #26's call light was on the floor and not within reach of the resident. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving needed care and services in a timely manner. The findings were: Record review of Resident #26's face sheet dated 3/31/25 revealed the resident was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease (general term for memory loss and other cognitive abilities serious enough to interfere with daily life), dementia, unspecified (general term for loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-11 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure each resident has a right to personal privacy and confidentiality of their personal and medical records. The facility failed to ensure the MAR binder (a binder with a list of residents' prescribed medications and when the medications were administered) on the west wing medication cart was kept confidential when it was left open and facing the hallway unattended while visitors and staff walked by. This could place residents at risk for private health information being viewed by unauthorized individuals. The findings were: In an observation on 4/8/25 at 9:25 a.m. in the hallway on the west wing slightly to the left of the entrance to the west wing hall there was a medication cart against the wall with the MAR binder open and facing the hallway, unattended. The MAR binder contained information on residents' medications. Multiple staff and visitors passed by the open binder on their way down the hallway. In an observation and interview on 4/8/25 at 9:26 a.m. revealed LVN D returned to the medication cart and stated she…
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 · D2025-04-11 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain safe environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely for 1 of 7 Residents (Resident #17) who were observed for wheelchair use. The facility failed to ensure Resident #17's wheelchair armrest were in good repair. Both armrests were cracked and torn. This deficient practice could affect residents who used a wheelchair and could contribute to injuries; skin tears. The findings were: Review of Resident #17's annual MDS assessment, dated 3/6/25, revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of Cerebral Palsy. Her BIMS score was 9, reflective of moderate cognitive impairment, she had impaired range of motion on both lower extremities and she used a wheelchair for mobility. Review of Resident #17's Care Plan, revised 3/6/25, revealed Resident #17 had self-care deficit r/t cognitive deficit. Observation on 04/09/25 at 12:06 PM revealed Resident #17 sitting in 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 · D2025-04-11 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 was free from physical restraints imposed for purposes of convenience that are not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms for the least amount of time and document ongoing re-evaluation of the need for restraints for 4 of 4 days during the survey period (4/8/25, 4/9/25, 4/10/25, and 4/11/25) reviewed for freedom from abuse. Resident #30 was seated in a Geri-chair with a tray table on 4/8/25, 4/9/25, 4/10/25, and 4/11/25 . The tray table was always present when the resident was out of bed and not removed for meals, or activities. And there was no documentation of ongoing re-evaluation of the need for restraints. This failure could place residents at risk for feelings of frustration, anger, humiliation, and could result in the residents being unnecessarily restrained in violation of their rights. The findings were: Record review of Resident #30's face sheet dated 3/31/25 revealed the resident was a [AGE]…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 23 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-11 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR) program for residents with newly evident or possible serious mental disorder for 1 of 4 Residents (Resident #4) whose records were reviewed. The facility failed to refer Resident #4 for Level I screening after being diagnosed with a mental disorder. This deficient practice could affect residents with a mental diagnosis and can result in residents not receiving services as identified by PASARR. The findings were: Review of Resident #4's annual MDS assessment, dated 2/6/25, revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His BIMS score was 2 of 15 reflective of severe cognitive impairment. His diagnoses included Hypertension (high blood pressure), Dementia, Depression and Psychotic Disorder. Review of Resident #4's Psychiatric Subsequent Assessment, dated 2/14/25, revealed diagnoses included Persistent mood (affective disorder) unspecified and Major Depressive…
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 · D2025-04-11 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good personal and oral hygiene for 1 of 7 Residents (Resident #35) for Quality of Life. The facility failed to assist Resident #35 with washing her face and brushing her teeth. This deficient practice could affect residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living and result in resident's being dissatisfied and having poor self-esteem. The findings were: Review of Resident #35's face sheet, dated 3/31/25, revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Parkinson's Disease and Dementia. Review of Resident #35's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 1/20/25, revealed her BIMS score was 10 of 15 reflective of moderate cognitive impairment. She had functional limitations in range of motion in both upper and lower extremities and she was dependent on staff for all ADL's including hygiene.…
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 · D2025-04-11 · 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 a resident who needs respiratory care, is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #26), reviewed for quality of care. Resident #26's nebulizer mask was uncovered and the elastic that holds it on to the resident's face was stretched around the uncovered nebulizer machine. The nebulizer mask had an unknown white substance on it. This failure could place residents at risk of cross contamination and respiratory illness. The findings were: Record review of Resident #26's face sheet dated 3/31/25 revealed the resident was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease (general term for memory loss and other cognitive abilities serious enough to interfere with daily life), dementia, unspecified (general term for loss of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-11 · 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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, maintain medical records on each resident that were complete, accurately documented, and failed to safeguard medical record information against loss, destruction, or unauthorized use for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #19) reviewed for administration. Resident #19's nutrition assessment form had the correct resident name but the wrong admission date, wrong date of birth , the wrong height and ideal body weight range. This could place residents at risk for inaccurate health records and incorrect plans of action. The findings were: Record review of Resident #19's face sheet dated 3/31/25 revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbances (general term for loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily…
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 · D2025-04-11 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the hospice services meet professional standards and principles that apply to individuals providing services in the facility, and to the timeliness of the services and failed to have a communication process, including how the communication will be documented between the LTC facility and the hospice provider, to ensure that the needs of the resident are addressed and met 24 hours per day for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #88), reviewed for hospice services. Resident #88's hospice binder and medical record had no hospice visit nursing notes and the facility staff nurses were not aware the hospice documentation was needed as part of the medical record. This failure could place residents at risk of decreased continuity of care, not receiving necessary care and services in a timely manner. The findings were: Record review of Resident #88's face sheet dated 4/1/25 revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-30 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to implement written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property for 2 of 5 staff (NA A and NA B) whose records were reviewed. The facility failed to ensure NA A and NA B were screened through the EMR and NAR registry to ensure they were employable. These deficient practices could affect any resident and contribute to resident abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property. The findings were: This deficient practice could affect all residents and result in staff not being eligible to provide direct care to residents. The findings were: 1. Review of pre-employment search revealed NA A had not been screened through the EMR and NAR registries during 2023 through 2024. Review of employee/staffing schedule from 1/29/25 to 1/31/25 revealed NA A worked from 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM on 1/29/25. A VM on 1/30/25 at 5:32 PM was left for NA A requesting she return the call. NA did not return the call by the end of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-30 · tag F0729 — isolatedVerify that a nurse aide has been trained; and if they haven't worked as a nurse aide for 2 years, receive retraining.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure before allowing an individual to serve as a nurse aide, a facility must receive registry verification that the individual has met competency evaluation requirements for 2 of 3 Staff (NA A and NA B) whose records were reviewed. The facility failed to ensure NA A and NA B completed a nurse aide program and received their certification. This deficient practice could affect all residents and result in staff not being eligible to provide direct care to residents. The findings were: 1. Review of NA A's personnel file revealed there was no documentation NA A completed a nurse aide course and received a certification. Review of employee/staffing schedule from 1/29/25 to 1/31/25 revealed NA A worked from 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM on 1/29/25. A VM on 1/30/25 at 5:32 PM was left for NA A requesting she return the call. NA A did not return the call by the end of the investigation period. 2. Review of NA B's personnel file revealed there was no documentation NA B completed a nurse aide course and received a certification. Review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-30 · tag F0943 — isolatedGive their staff education on dementia care, and what abuse, neglect, and exploitation are; and how to report abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide training to their staff that at a minimum educated these staff on procedures for reporting incidents of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or the misappropriation of resident property for 2 of 5 staff (NA A and NA B) whose records were reviewed for abuse training. Staff NA A and NA B did not have their training for abuse or neglect for the year 2024. This deficient practice could affect any resident and contribute to resident abuse and or neglect. The findings were: 1. Review of employee personnel file revealed NA A had not completed training for resident abuse or resident neglect for the year 2024. Review of in-service dated 10/4/24 for ANE, Resident Rights, Restraints, and Fall prevention revealed NA A did not attend the in-service. A VM on 1/30/25 at 5:32 PM was left for NA A requesting she return the call. NA did not return the call by the end of the investigation period. 2. Review of pre-employment search revealed NA B had not completed training for resident abuse or resident neglect for the year 2024. 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 · E2024-03-08 · tag F0639 — patternMaintain 15 months of resident assessments in the resident's active clinical record.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure all resident assessments completed within the previous 15 months in the resident's active record were maintained in the resident's active medical records for 6 of 6 residents reviewed for MDS assessments. (Resident #1, Resident #10, Resident #13, Resident #18, Resident # 21, and Resident #35) in that -MDS assessments for Resident #1, Resident #10, Resident #13, Resident #18, Resident # 21, and Resident #35 were not accessible to staff and ready to review, when the DON/Owner was not on site and able to unlock the cabinet in which all resident MDS assessments were stored. These failures affected 6 residents and placed them at risk of not having their assessments available for review. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet revealed an admission date of 02/09/2016 and included the following diagnoses: Schizophrenia (mental disorder characterized by reoccurring episodes of psychosis that are corrected with a general misperception of reality) , paranoid state (thought process that is believed to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-03-08 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake 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 and interviews the facility failed to provide a safe functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public. The facility failed to ensure good general safety precautions were in place in one outside building, 39.11 feet away from the nursing facility; where food was stored, staff complete laundry services for residents, and facility maintenance items were stored. Findings Included: During an observation on 03/06/2024 at approximately 5:45 p.m., the following observations were made: A building adjacent to the main nursing facility building was used to house the laundry room, food pantry, and the maintenance room. The maintenance room and laundry room were separated by a cinder brick wall, the pantry and the maintenance room were separated by a gypsum wall. The building measured at approximately 39.11 feet away from the main building. The following discrepancies were noted: 1. Dryer electrical cord was wrapped around the flexible gas connection. 2. Flexible gas tubing connected to the dryer was being held in place by a wire tie…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-08 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #35) reviewed for assessments: The facility reported diagnoses included depression, psychotic disorder( serious illness that affects the mind and make it hard for someone to think clearly make good judgements), schizophrenia (mental disorder characterized by reoccurring episodes of psychosis that are corrected with a general misperception of reality), and post-traumatic stress disorder( a mental health condition that is triggered by a traumatic event) on Resident #35's most recent MDS assessment, (dated 01/04/2024). No medical record available in the resident's chart or that the DON/Owner could provide supported the resident having been given those diagnoses at that time or historically. This failure could affect residents who had been at the facility more than 14 days by contributing to inadequate care based on inaccurate assessments. The findings were: Record review of Resident #35's face sheet, (with at report date 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 before2024-03-08 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that includes measurable objective and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 2 (Resident #4 and resident # 141) of 8 residents reviewed for care plans. Resident #4 had no care plan in his chart. Resident #141's care plan was incomplete and only had two pages in the care plan. The findings included: Record review of Resident #4's electronic face sheet dated 05/10/2018 reflected he was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included: nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (bleeding in the brain), vitamin D deficiency, hyperlipidemia (too much fat in the blood), and age-related nuclear cataract (clouding and thickening of the eye lens). Record review of Resident #4's MDS assessment dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-20 · tag F0622 — isolatedNot transfer or discharge a resident without an adequate reason; and must provide documentation and convey specific information when a resident is transferred or discharged.
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 permit each resident to remain in the facility, and not transfer or discharge the resident from the facility for 1 of 2 (Resident #1) residents reviewed for transfer and discharged rights. The facility failed to readmit Resident #1 after an acute care hospital stay resulting in Resident #1 not being permitted to stay in the facility pending placement or appeal. This deficient practice could place residents residing in the facility at risk of not being able to remain at the facility, resulting in violation of their rights. Findings: Record review of Resident #1's admission record, dated 07/18/23, revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included Parkinson's disease, COPD, high blood pressure, dementia, repeated falls, and weakness. The face sheet indicated a family member was designated as his responsible party. Record review of Resident #1's progress notes, dated 11/24/23, revealed the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-20 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal 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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure before transferring or discharging a resident, the notice of transfer or discharge was made by the facility at least 30 days before the resident was transferred or discharged for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for discharge requirement. The facility refused to accept Resident #1 back on 11/25/2023 after emergently discharging Resident #1 to acute care (on 11/23/2023) for attacking an LVN and CNA. Resident #1's Responsible Party was not given a 30-day discharge notice when the facility refused to readmit Resident #1 from the acute care hospital on [DATE]. These failures could place residents at risk of being discharged and not having access to available advocacy services, discharge/transfer options and appeal process. Findings Include: Record review of Resident #1's admission record, dated 07/18/23, revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included Parkinson's 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 · D2023-12-20 · 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 they are hospitalized or placed on therapeutic leave for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for discharge requirement, in that: 1. The facility failed and refused to readmit Resident #1 from the hospital where he was transferred for evaluation and treatment. 2. The facility failed to give Resident #1 or his RP a 30 day discharge notice. These deficient practices could affect residents discharged from the facility and their ability to return to the facility. Findings Include: Record review of Resident #1's admission record, dated 07/18/23, revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included Parkinson's disease, COPD, high blood pressure, dementia, repeated falls, and weakness. The face sheet indicated a family member was designated as his responsible party. Record review of Resident #1's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-12-20 · tag F0729 — isolatedVerify that a nurse aide has been trained; and if they haven't worked as a nurse aide for 2 years, receive retraining.
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 it received registry verification for 1 (CNA A) of 4 employees reviewed for registry verification prior to allowing an applicant to serve as a nurse aide in that: The facility failed to ensure CNA A had a current nurse aide certification while employed at the facility, while actively providing care for residents. This failure could result in residents being provided care by staff who have not provided documentation of training and competency in providing care. The findings included: Review of CNA A's personnel file reflected a date of hire of [DATE]. The last Employability Status Check Search that was completed on [DATE] reflected CNA A's NAR status expired on [DATE]. Review of the daily nursing staff schedule , for [DATE] reflected CNA A worked on [DATE] on shift 10-6 (10:00 PM - 6:00 AM) under the Aides section. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. CNA A stated she worked at the facility as a CNA and had been working as a CNA since may…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-02-03 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs for 7 of 7 residents (Resident #11, #30, #32, #4, #22, #18 and #1) reviewed for care plans in that: Residents #11, #30, #32, #4, #22, #18 and #1 were not assessed for pain per the physician's orders and as per the measurable objectives and timeframes addressed on the comprehensive person-centered care plan. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving inadequate interventions not individualized to their care needs. The findings were: a. Record review of Resident #11's face sheet, dated 3/3/22 revealed a [AGE] year old female admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic renal failure (longstanding disease of the kidneys leading to kidney failure), hypothyroidism (abnormally low activity of the thyroid gland resulting in slowing 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 · D2023-02-03 · tag F0638 — isolatedAssure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to assess each resident quarterly (every 3 months) using the Minimum Data Set form specified by the state and approved by CMS for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #25) whose MDS assessments were reviewed, in that: Resident #25's Quarterly MDS Assessment was not completed or submitted. This deficient practice could place residents at-risk of not having their assessments completed timely. The findings were: Record review of Resident #25's face sheet, with a report date of 06/01/2022, revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: HTN NOS (hypertension or high blood pressure), Senile Dementia uncomp (mental deterioration or loss of intellectual ability, that is associated with or the characteristics of old age), Diabetes Mellitus (refers to a group of diseases that affect how the body uses blood sugar (glucose), and Vitamin D Deficiency ( low level of the Vitamin D). Record review of Resident #25's information provided by the facility…
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 · D2023-02-03 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode 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 transmit a resident assessment within the required time frame for 2 of 5 residents (Residents #4 and #32) reviewed for data encoding and transmission in that: 1. Resident # 4's last MDS assessment submitted was on 10/04/2022 and no other MDS was transmitted prior to the survey. 2. Resident #32's last MDS assessment submitted was on 10/06/2022 and no other MDS was transmitted prior to the survey. This failure could affect residents who resided in the facility and put them at risk of not having their assessments transmitted timely. The findings were: 1. Record review of Resident #32's face sheet, dated 1/10/23 revealed an [AGE] year old female admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included senile dementia (mental deterioration in old age, characterized by loss of memory and control of bodily functions), anxiety and chronic pain syndrome. Record review of Resident #32's medical record revealed the resident's last MDS assessment was completed on 1/05/2023…
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 · D2023-02-03 · 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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to include procedures that assured the accurate dispensing and administering of all drugs to meet the needs of 1 of 6 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for medication administration in that: LVN D left Resident #4's medication at the bedside. This deficient practice could affect residents and place them at risk of not receiving the therapeutic dosage and drug diversion. The findings were: Record review of Resident #4's face sheet, dated 9/24/18, revealed a [AGE] year old female admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hypertension (high blood pressure), anxiety, depressive disorder, chronic pain syndrome and osteoarthritis (degeneration of joint cartilage and the underlying bone). Further review of the face sheet, under Allergies, revealed Resident #4 was identified as having seasonal allergies. Record review of Resident #4's most recent quarterly MDS, dated [DATE] revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · Bcited before2025-04-11 · tag F0912 — patternProvide rooms that are at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and 100 square feet for single resident rooms.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide a minimum of 80 square feet per resident in 16 of 32 double occupancy resident rooms (Rooms 5, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31), in that: Rooms 5, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 did not have the required 80 square feet per resident. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of problems in their activities of daily living. The findings were: Interview on 04/08/2025 at 9:53 AM with the Administrator revealed the facility had 16 resident rooms with square footage less than the 80 feet per resident required and identified the resident rooms as rooms 5, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. The Administrator stated there was a room waiver in effect for these rooms and stated the measurements of the rooms had not changed. Observation of the 16 rooms revealed they measured as followed: - room [ROOM NUMBER] - 79.3 square feet per resident (3 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.
- No harm found · Bcited before2024-03-08 · tag F0912 — patternProvide rooms that are at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and 100 square feet for single resident rooms.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide a minimum of 80 square feet per resident in 16 of 32 double occupancy resident rooms (Rooms 5, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31), in that: Rooms 5, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 did not have the required 80 square feet per resident. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of problems in their activities of daily living. The findings were: Interview on 03/08/2023 at 12:00 p.m., the Administrator confirmed the facility had 16 resident rooms with square footage less than the 80 feet per resident required and identified the resident rooms as Rooms 5, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. The Administrator stated there was a room waiver in effect for these rooms and stated the measurements of the rooms had not changed. The 16 rooms measured as followed: - room [ROOM NUMBER] - 79.3 square feet per resident (3) - room [ROOM NUMBER] - 77.9 square feet…
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 · Bcited before2023-02-03 · tag F0912 — patternProvide rooms that are at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and 100 square feet for single resident rooms.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide a minimum of 80 square feet per resident in 16 of 32 double occupancy resident rooms (Rooms 5, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31), in that: Rooms 5, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 did not have the required 80 square feet per resident. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of problems in their activities of daily living. The findings were: Interview on 2/03/2023 at 12:00 p.m., the Administrator confirmed the facility had 16 resident rooms with square footage less than the 80 feet per resident required and identified the resident rooms as Rooms 5, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. The Administrator stated there was a room waiver in effect for these rooms and stated the measurements of the rooms had not changed. The 16 rooms measured as followed: - room [ROOM NUMBER] - 79.3 square feet per resident (3) - room [ROOM NUMBER] - 77.9 square feet per…
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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in TX
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 45E312. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-11, 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.