No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Silver Creek Nursing And Rehabilitation

9014 Timber Path, San Antonio, TX 78250 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 120 certified beds · (210) 523-2455 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (210) 523-2455 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse-prevention, restraint, or reporting citation — no harm found (F0609) — cited Mar 2025
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
Worth asking about
  • 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
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (20) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • 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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 1 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
9179 Grissom Rd · (210) 680-8081 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
9255 GRISSOM RD
Grocery
9255 GRISSOM RD
Park
9014 Timber Path Rd · (210) 523-2455 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
8759 Grissom Rd

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
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 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.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased8.3%15.8%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight8.0%3.0%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.3%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection2.4%0.8%2.0%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms5.7%2.4%6.5%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.7%3.3%3.3%typical
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened4.7%14.0%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication21.5%18.0%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine98.9%98.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers8.6%3.8%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control18.3%13.4%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table9.8%9.6%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.5%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%88.0%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission21.7%25.7%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit6.5%12.3%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.982.171.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.672.061.80typical

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.

10.7%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
62.5%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.83U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.34hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.29hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.20hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 62.5% 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 40 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 0.83 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 95% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 17% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.7%CMS range 8.1–14.710.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge62.5%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge65.0%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge62.5%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot 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 stay2.8%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened4.2%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization8.0%CMS range 5.2–12.57.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.311.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.35
RN hours/ resident / day
0.85
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.84
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.04
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.27
RN hoursweekends
39.7%
Total nursing turnover
50.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 102.4 residents a day — about 85% occupied, or roughly 18 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.04 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.35 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.84 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 2.58 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.22 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.38 to 0.27 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

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

Inspection trend

6
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-07-02)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2024-06-06)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

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

  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-07-02 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure 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 facility reviewed for food and nutrition services.1.-The facility failed to ensure an overhead ceiling vent in the main kitchen area was cleaned2. The facility failed to ensure a side wall vent in the main kitchen area was cleaned3. The facility failed to ensure overhead lighting in the main kitchen area was repaired.4. The facility failed to ensure overhead lighting in the dish room area was repaired5. The facility failed to repair broken side wall tiles in the main kitchen area.6-The facility failed to ensure two ceiling vents in the dry storage room were repaired.7-The facility failed to ensure two ceiling vents in the employee bathroom were repaired8-The facility failed to ensure broken floor molding in the main kitchen area was repaired.9-The facility failed to ensure broken floor molding in the dietary manager's office was repaired.10-The facility failed to ensure a side wall crack 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-07-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 1 laundry areas, 1 of 5 facility hallways (300 hall), and 3 of 6 residents (Residents #37, #191, and #78) reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure clean linen in the laundry area was stored in a method to reduce the risk of contamination.2. The facility failed to ensure PPE was readily available to staff caring for residents identified as requiring EBP in the 300 hallway.3. The facility failed to ensure staff members were following TBP procedures and donning PPE when providing high contact care for Residents #37, #191, and #78. These failures could place residents at risk for the transmission of infection, infection, or illness. Findings included:1. In an observation of the facility's only laundry…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-07-02 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — pattern
    Make 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public for 2 of 5 resident hallways (100 and 500 hallways) and 2 of 2 shower room (West and East Wing shower rooms) reviewed for environmental concerns in that:1-The facility failed to clean a bathroom ceiling vent in room [ROOM NUMBER].2-The facility failed to replace a bathroom light bulb and repair a piece of bathroom floor molding in room [ROOM NUMBER].3-The facility failed to clean a bathroom vent in room [ROOM NUMBER].4-The facility failed to replace a bedroom side wall light in room [ROOM NUMBER].5-The facility failed to clean a ceiling vent and and sprinkler head on the [NAME] Wing shower room.6-The facility failed to clean the ceiling vents and replace light bulbs in the East Wing shower room.These failures could place residents at risk of not residing in a safe, comfortable, and homelike environment.The findings included:Observation…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-07-02 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    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 with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #13) reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility failed to implement the repositioning schedule indicated in Resident #13's comprehensive care plan. This failure could place residents at risk of hindered healing of the residents with existing pressure ulcers or lead to the development of additional skin injuries.Findings included:Record review of Resident #13's face sheet, date printed 7/2/2025, revealed resident was a [AGE] year-old female originally admitted on [DATE]. Record review of the quarterly MDS submitted on 6/1/2025 reflected a BIMS score of 02. Section M of the MDS indicated Resident #13 had 2 unstageable pressure ulcers and 1 unstageable pressure ulcer presenting as a deep tissue injury.…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-07-02 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    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 nutritional and hydration care and services to each resident, consistent with the resident's comprehensive assessment for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #39) reviewed for nutrition. The facility failed to assess and document the restricted fluid intake for Resident #39, as ordered by the physician.This failure could place residents at risk of impaired cardiovascular function, impaired breathing, and decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #39's face sheet, date printed 6/29/2025, revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A relevant diagnosis included chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure (weakening of the heart muscle leading to impaired function and fluid overload). Record review of the annual MDS submitted 6/19/2025 revealed a BIMS score of 15, which indicated intact cognition. Additional record review of Resident #39's comprehensive care plan, date…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-07-02 · tag F0813 — isolated
    Have 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 # 33) of 3 residents reviewed, in that:Resident # 33's personal refrigerator located in her room observed on 06/29/2025, revealed food items, with no date and no label. This failure could place residents at risk of foodborne illness due to consuming foods which might be spoiled. The findings included: Record review of Resident #33's face sheet, dated 06/29/2025, reflected the resident was an [AGE] year old female and was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: dementia (loss memory or problem solving and other thinking abilities), muscle wasting and atrophy (loss of muscle tissue and strength), and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus(not control blood sugar in the body). Record review of Resident #33's quarterly 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-19 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown sources are reported not later than 24 hours to the administrator of the facility and to other officials, including to the State Survey Agency in accordance with State law through established procedures, for 1 of 3 Residents (Resident #1) reviewed for Abuse, in that: The facility did not report an allegation of abuse not later than 24 hours to the State Survey Agency (HHSC) when Resident #1 fell off the bed. This deficient practice could affect any resident and could contribute to further abuse. The findings were: Review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 3/19/25, revealed a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Major Depressive Disorder (a mental health condition that causes a persistently low or depressed mood and a loss of interest), Epilepsy (a brain disease where nerve cells don't…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-19 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 each resident received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to ensure CNA A provided adequate supervision and assistance devices for Resident #1 when CNA A failed to use two staff during incontinent care on 03/14/2025 resulting in Resident #1 falling off the bed. The non-compliance was identified as past non-compliance. The noncompliance began on 3/14/25 and ended on 3/16/25. The facility had corrected the non-compliance before the survey began. This failure could lead to injury or death to residents. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 3/19/25, revealed a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Major Depressive Disorder (a mental health condition that causes a persistently low or depressed mood and a loss of interest), Epilepsy (a brain disease where…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-03-14 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — pattern
    Make 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public on 4 (Hallways 100, 200, 400, 500) of 5 resident hallways reviewed for environmental concerns. The facility failed to replace dirty ceiling tiles and clean rusted air vents on halls 100, 200, 400, and 500. These failures could place residents at risk of a diminished quality of life due to exposure to an environment that was unpleasant and unsafe. The findings included: During an observation on 03/12/25 from 5:30 am-6:00 am the following observations were made on resident hallways 100, 200, 400, and 500. 1-On the 100- resident hallway: a-there was a dirty 2x2 ft ceiling tile and a rusted ceiling air vent across from the storage room and a dirty 2x2 ft ceiling tile and a rusted air vent at the nurse's station. 2-On the 200- resident hallway: a-there was a rusted air vent across from room [ROOM NUMBER], a rusted air vent across from room…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-08-27 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — pattern
    Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standard and practices that are complete and accurately documented for 7 (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 #8) of 8 residents reviewed for treatment administration. The facility failed to ensure the treatment administration records (TAR) for Residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, and #8 reflected that the administration of the treatment orders were accurately documented. This deficient practice could place residents receiving treatments at risk for not receiving appropriate care. The findings were: 1) Review of Resident #1's undated face sheet revealed Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old male who originally admitted to the facility 07/28/2023 and readmitted , 01/09/2024 with diagnoses that included Parkinsonism (an umbrella term that refers to brain conditions causing slowing movements, rigidity, tremors), type 2 diabetes (a condition resulting from insufficient production of insulin, causing high blood…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
Show the remaining 10 citations
  • Potential for harm · D2024-08-27 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 (Resident #2) of 8 residents reviewed for quality of care. 1) The facility failed to ensure LVN C labeled and dated Resident #2's wound treatment dressing after completing wound care on 08/25/24. 2) The facility failed to ensure LVN C followed Resident #2's physician order for wound treatment. These failures could affect residents who receive wound care treatments by placing them at risk for receiving inadequate treatments resulting in the worsening of wounds. The findings were: Review of Resident #2's undated face sheet reflected Resident #2 was a [AGE] year-old female who originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy (a chemical imbalance in the blood that causes problems in the brain), type 2 diabetes (a condition resulting from insufficient…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to ensure enhanced barrier precaution procedures were followed by staff in direct care of 1 resident (Resident #2) of 8 reviewed for infection control in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 had a sign on the room door indicating Resident #2 required enhanced barrier precautions per the facility's policy. The deficient practice could place the staff and residents at risk for infection. The findings were: Review of Resident #2's undated face sheet reflected Resident #2 was a [AGE] year old female who originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy (a chemical imbalance in the blood that causes problems in the brain), type 2 diabetes (a condition resulting from insufficient production of insulin, causing high blood sugar), displaced avulsion fracture of right talus (when a small part of the ankle bone…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-06-06 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on and biologicals were stored properly for 2 of 6 medication carts (400 hall medication cart, 100 hall nurse medication cart). 1. An expired bottle of medication was stored in the drawer of the 400-hall medication cart . 2. The medication cart assigned to hall 100 had a loose pill. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving prescribed medications as ordered, receiving medications that were less effective or have altered composition, and drug diversions. The findings included : 1. During an observation on 06/05/24 at 9:37 AM of the medication cart for hall 400 with CMA A, an expired bottle of Healthy Eyes Mineral Supplement with Lutein and Antioxidants was found in the cart drawer. The expiration date on the bottle was observed to be 2/2024. CMA A removed the expired medication bottle from the cart and stated it would be given to the DON for destruction. During an interview on 06/05/24 at 02:48 PM with CMA A, he stated there should not be expired medications on the cart. He stated he put the expired bottle of medication in the bottom cart drawer with 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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-06 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolated
    Procure 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for dietary services. The facility failed to ensure foods were processed and pureed under sanitary conditions. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and foodborne illness. The findings included: The following observations were made on 06/04/24 at 11:15 AM during observation of puree meal preparation: After pureeing garlic bread sticks, [NAME] A took processor bowl, lid, and blade to 3-compartment sink and cleaned all 3 parts. [NAME] A took all there parts back to processor base and assembled. Observed liquid in bottom of bowl, lid and blade was dripping liquid on floor and countertop. [NAME] A removed processor bowl and lid and poured liquid into sink. [NAME] A placed processor bowl and blade back on the processor base. [NAME] A prepared puree spaghetti then took processor bowl, lid, and blade to 3 compartments sink and cleaned all 3 parts. 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-22 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
    Immediately 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 the resident's physician and notify the resident's responsible party when there was a need to alter treatment significantly for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for notification of changes in that: The facility failed to consult Resident #1's primary physician and inform the responsible party prior to placing an indwelling urinary catheter in Resident #1. This deficient practice could affect residents and place them at risk for untimely and inappropriate care leading to injury and or death. The findings were: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 11/19/23, revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of other sequelae [a condition following a previous disease or injury] of cerebral infarction [stroke], dysphagia [difficulty swallowing] following cerebral infarction, heart failure, unspecified, unspecified atrial fibrillation [a quivering, irregular heartbeat], and muscle weakness…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-22 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide 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 interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure incontinent care was provided in accordance with appropriate treatment and service practices to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for incontinent care and catheter care, in that: Resident #1 had an indwelling urinary catheter inserted without a physician's order. This deficient practice could place residents at-risk for infection due to improper care practices. The findings were: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 11/19/23, revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of other sequelae [a condition following a previous disease or injury] of cerebral infarction [stroke], dysphagia [difficulty swallowing] following cerebral infarction, heart failure, unspecified, unspecified atrial fibrillation [a quivering, irregular heartbeat], and muscle weakness (generalized.) Further record review of this face sheet 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-05-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for sanitation in that: 1. Three 35-ounce bags of cereal in plastic bags opened and in plastic bags that were open. 2. One bag of macaroni noodles opened not labeled dated twisted at the top but not completely closed. 3. One 16-ounce bag of potato chips with no open date. 4. One 30-ounce Mexican style dehydrated beans, opened and partially used, with no open date or expirations date. 5. One box or grits opened and not completely sealed with no open date. 6. One package of hot dog buns partially covered with a green powdery substance varying in shades of green, covering approximately ninety percent of the remaining buns in the package. These failures could place residents at risk for food-born illness, and food contamination. Findings included: Observation on 05/09/2023 at 8:45 a.m. in the dry storage room revealed: -Three 35-ounce bags of cereal partially used and plastic…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-05-12 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolated
    Provide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who required dialysis received such services, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #27) reviewed for dialysis in that: The facility did not maintain communication, coordination and collaboration with the dialysis facility for Resident #27. This deficient practice could affect residents who received dialysis treatments and place them at risk for complications and not receiving proper care and treatment to meet their needs. The findings were: Record review of Resident #27's face sheet, dated 5/11/23 revealed a [AGE] year old female admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted [DATE] with diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy (an alteration in consciousness caused by diffuse or global brain dysfunction), heart failure, type 2 diabetes (a chronic (long-lasting) health condition that affects how your body turns food into energy), chronic kidney disease (longstanding disease of the kidneys…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-05-12 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolated
    Ensure 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that the menus were followed for 1 of 2 meals observed in that: The findings were: Residents were served an item called Homestyle Macaroni & Cheese which did not follow the recipe provided and was identified as a vegetarian option on the recipe provided by the facility, however contained meat. This deficient practice could affect all residents who received meals and snacks from the kitchen by contributing to dissatisfaction, poor intake, and/or weight loss. The findings were: Observation in the kitchen on 05/10/2023 at 5:00 p.m. revealed meat was being prepared as part of the meal and was not included in the recipe for Homestyle Macaroni & Cheese but had been added to the dish. Observation in the dining room on 05/10/2023 at approximately 5:50 p.m. revealed Residents in the dining room were served Homestyle Macaroni & Cheese with added meat. Record Review of the Fall/Winter 22-23 menu, provided by the facility, revealed Homestyle Macaroni and Cheese would be served on 05/10/2023. 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-05-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide 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, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for one resident (#71) of 4 observed for infection control in that: CNA D failed to follow infection control requirements while performing incontinent care for Resident #71. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for infection. The findings were: Record Review of Resident #71's electronic face sheet dated 05/12/2023 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia, hydronephrosis (a condition where one or both kidneys become stretched or swollen as a result of build-up of urine inside them), ulcerative proctitis (an idiopathic mucosal inflammatory disease involving only the rectum), type 2 diabetes mellitus with hypoglycemia, need for assistance with personal care and muscle weakness.…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to EDURO HEALTHCARE — 34 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 52.4+0.6 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.4+1.6 vs chain
Staffing 1 of 52.2-1.2 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 53.1+0.9 vs chain
The other 33 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
1 of 5Bear Creek Nursing And RehabilitationGrapevine, TX 1 of 5Cooney Healthcare And RehabilitationHelena, MT 1 of 5Deer Creek Nursing and RehabilitationWimberley, TX 1 of 5Ennis Care CenterEnnis, TX 1 of 5Greenview Nursing and RehabilitationWaco, TX 1 of 5Lakeshore Village Nursing And RehabilitationWaco, TX 1 of 5Memorial Medical Nursing And RehabilitationSan Antonio, TX 1 of 5Pleasanton North Nursing And RehabilitationPleasanton, TX 1 of 5Richardson Nursing and RehabilitationRichardson, TX 1 of 5Rolling Hills HealthcareBelle Fourche, SD 1 of 5San Antonio North Nursing and RehabilitationSan Antonio, TX 1 of 5Skyline Heights Nursing And RehabilitationBillings, MT 1 of 5The Meadows On UniversityFargo, ND 1 of 5The Suites PasadenaPasadena, TX 1 of 5Yellowstone River Nursing And RehabilitationBillings, MT 2 of 5Elkhorn Healthcare And RehabilitationClancy, MT 2 of 5Jourdanton Nursing and RehabilitationJourdanton, TX 2 of 5Keystone Post-AcuteFresno, CA 2 of 5Parkview Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterLockhart, TX 2 of 5Spearfish Canyon HealthcareSpearfish, SD 2 of 5The Suites Rio VistaRio Rancho, NM 3 of 5Cypress Woods Care CenterAngleton, TX 3 of 5Eastern Montana Veterans HomeGlendive, MT 4 of 5Copper Ridge Health And Rehabilitation CenterButte, MT 4 of 5Hacienda Oaks At BeevilleBeeville, TX 4 of 5Heritage Trails Nursing And Rehabilitation CenterCleburne, TX 4 of 5Pleasanton South Nursing and RehabilitationPleasanton, TX 4 of 5Prairie Heights HealthcareAberdeen, SD 5 of 5Bangs Nursing And RehabilitationBangs, TX 5 of 5Golden Years Nursing And Rehabilitation CenterMarlin, TX 5 of 5Highland Care CenterHolladay, UT 5 of 5Hurst Plaza Nursing and RehabHurst, TX 5 of 5Southwest Montana Veterans HomeButte, MT

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 / managerTypeRoleSince
GIVENS, LAURAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/01/2022
TELLES, YOLANDAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/01/2022
APOLINAR, ADAMIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 07/23/2015
CONTRERAS, TERRIIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/29/2019
TIMBER NURSING AND REHAB CENTER LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/26/2025
SUAREZ, DANIELLAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/01/2022
BEWSEY, MICHAELIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/26/2025
SMV SAN ANTONIO SILVER CREEK LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 08/01/2022

CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 8 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.

2 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.

$9.2M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-4.3%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 85%Medicare 10%Other / private 4%

About 85% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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

$322per resident / day
operating cost
$9,777per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$308per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). 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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Texas
$5,627/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$7,604/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,666/mo
Assisted living

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 455652. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-02, 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.

What to do next