Paradigm at The Pines
705 Hwy 418 W, Silsbee, TX 77656 · Government - Hospital district · 90 certified beds · (409) 385-0033 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Sep 2025
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (34) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $8,281 in federal fines (most recent 2025-09-10)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (67%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 3 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 15.5% | 15.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.7% | 3.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.5% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.6% | 2.4% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.0% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.2% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.1% | 18.0% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.9% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 5.4% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.4% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.7% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 0.0% | 12.3% | 12.0% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.86 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.08 | 2.06 | 1.80 | worse |
* 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 0.51 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 82% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 41% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not 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 SNF | 10.6%CMS range 7.5–15.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.83 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 90 beds and averages 52.6 residents a day — about 58% occupied, or roughly 37 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.90 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.25 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.65 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 3.03 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.27 to 0.18 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 67% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
34 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 23 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-09-10 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents and supervision. (Resident #1)The facility failed to provide adequate supervision for Resident #1 who was assessed as a high risk for elopement. On 03/23/25 CNA B who was assigned to cover the unit left the unit leaving the residents unattended. Resident #1 eloped from the unit and was found at his previous home address sitting on the porch steps approximately 1 mile from the facility. The non-compliance was identified as past non-compliance. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 03/23/25 and ended on 03/27/25. The facility had corrected the non-compliance before the survey began. This failure could prevent residents from receiving appropriate supervision which could lead to resident sustaining serious injury or harm. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated 09/09/25 indicated Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-12-10 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to consider the views of a resident or family group and act promptly upon the grievances and recommendations of such groups concerning issues of resident care and life in the facility for 16 out of 16 anonymous residents during a confidential meeting who were reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure the resident council food grievances were promptly resolved. This failure could place residents at risk for a decreased quality of life.The findings included: Record review of the Resident Council Meeting Minutes, dated 09/11/25, reflected New Business. C. Dietary - see form. The dietary form attached to the resident council minutes reflected .seasons food good.residents would like fried and boiled eggs, wheat bread for diabetics, toast is being made too hard. Record review of the Resident Council Meeting Minutes, dated 10/09/25, reflected New Business. C. Dietary - see form. The dietary form attached to the resident council minutes reflected .Chili on 10/07/25 was way too spicy (hot).residents requesting fried…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-12-10 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received and the facility provided food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 8 of 16 residents (Resident #15, Resident #20, Resident #24, Resident #27, Resident #37, Resident #38, Resident #48 and Resident #49) reviewed for food and nutrition services. 1. The facility failed to ensure residents received food that tasted good. 2. The facility failed to ensure residents received food with an appetizing appearance, texture, and appropriate temperature. These failures could place residents at risk of weight loss, altered nutritional status and diminished quality of life. 1. Record review of a face sheet, dated 12/08/25, revealed Resident #15 was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including major depressive disorder (a serious mood disorder causing persistent sadness, loss of interest, and impaired daily functioning, stemming…
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 · E2025-12-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 3 hallways (D Hall) and 1 of 1 (Resident #16) reviewed for infection control practices. 1. The facility failed to ensure LVN E performed hand hygiene between each meal tray while passing the lunch meal trays on 12/08/25. 2. The facility failed to ensure CNA D changed her gloves and performed hand hygiene during Resident #16's incontinent care on 12/09/25. These failures could place residents at risk for cross contamination and an increased risk of infection, or the spread of infection. The findings included: 1. During an observation on 12/08/25 between 11:17 AM and 11:25 AM, LVN E checked the meal trays on D Hall and started passing them. LVN E passed the meal tray to room D1, set up the tray and exited 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 · D2025-12-10 · 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 ensure the resident had the right to a safe, clean, and comfortable homelike environment for 1 of 16 residents (Resident #40) reviewed for physical environment. The facility failed to ensure Resident #40's room was cleaned and in good repair. This failure could place residents at risk for a decreased quality of life and an unsanitary environment. The findings included: Record review of the face sheet, dated 12/09/25, reflected Resident #40 was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of cancer of the tongue. Record review of the MDS tab in the electronic charting system, reflected Resident #40's admission MDS assessment was in progress and had not been completed yet. Record review of the baseline care plan, initiated on 12/02/25, reflected Resident #40 was new to the nursing facility and required adjustment. Record review of the nursing progress notes, dated between 12/01/25 and 12/10/25, reflected…
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 before2025-12-10 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible for 1 of 3 Halls (Hall C) reviewed for accidents and supervision. The facility failed to ensure an unsecured shower room did not contain bath wash, disinfectant, which was labeled Keep out of the reach of children and a package of disposable razors This failure could place residents at risk for accidents that could lead to injuries. Findings include: During an observation on 12/08/2025 at 8:15 a.m., revealed the shower room on C hall was not locked. The shower room contained a plastic cabinet approximately 6 feet tall and was missing 1 of the 2 doors. The cabinet contained 2-6 ounce bottles of body wash and were labeled to keep out of reach of children. There was a package of disposable razors noted in the cabinet. There were no residents, or staff near the shower door at this time. During an observation on 12/08/25 at 9:17 a.m., revealed the doorknob was set to lock, but the door was not latched and pushed opened. 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 · D2025-12-10 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide 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 ensure that a resident is offered sufficient fluid intake to maintain proper hydration and health for 1 of 16 resident (Resident #39) reviewed for hydration. The facility failed to ensure Resident #39 had a water pitcher at his bedside on 12/08/25, 12/09/25, and 12/10/25. This failure could place residents at risk for decreased quality of care and dehydration. The findings included: Record review of the face sheet, dated 12/10/25, reflected Resident #39 was a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of rhabdomyolysis (rare and life-threatening condition where your muscles break down and release toxins into your blood and kidneys), heart failure (chronic, progressive condition in which the heart muscle is unable to pump enough blood to meet the body's need for blood and oxygen), and chronic kidney disease (kidneys are damaged over time, leading to a decline in their ability to filter blood effectively).…
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 before2025-12-10 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services including procedures that assured the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing and administering of all drugs and biologicals to meet the needs of each resident and determined that drug records are in order and that an account of all controlled drugs is maintained and periodically reconciled for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #46) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #46's as needed Tylenol #3 (narcotic pain medication) was signed out in the electronic medical record, when it was given on 12/02/25, 12/04/25, and 12/06/25. This failure could place residents at risk for medication errors and loss of medications through drug diversion. The findings included: Record review of the face sheet, dated 12/10/25, reflected Resident #46 was a [AGE] year-old male who initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of osteoarthritis (degenerative joint disease characterized by the progressive…
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 · D2025-12-10 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident received and the facility provided food that accommodated the resident allergies, intolerances and preferences 1 of 16 residents (Resident #19) reviewed for food and nutrition services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #19's food preferences and listed food allergy were honored. This failure could place residents at risk for dissatisfaction, poor intake, and/or weight loss.Record review of a face sheet, dated 12/08/25, revealed Resident #19 was [AGE] years old and admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia , paranoid schizophrenia (a disorder with a common presentation where paranoia, intense delusions [like persecution], and vivid hallucinations [often auditory] dominate, while other cognitive functions remain relatively intact), and major depressive disorder (a serious mood disorder causing persistent sadness, loss of interest, and impaired daily functioning, stemming from a mix 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 · D2025-12-10 · tag F0926 — failed to keep the home smoke-free / fire-safe — isolatedHave policies on smoking.
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 establish policies, in accordance with applicable, Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, regarding smoking, smoking areas, and smoking safety that also take into account nonsmoking residents for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #5) reviewed for smoking and smoking policy. The facility failed to complete a quarterly smoking assessment for Resident #5 per facility policy. This failure could place residents at risk of an unsafe smoking environment and injury. Findings included: Record review of Resident #5's smoking - safety screen indicated the last and only assessment was completed on 04/16/24 and indicated she was a safe smoker. Record review of Resident #5's admission record, dated 12/10/25, indicated a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #5 had diagnose which included dementia (decline in memory, judgment and thinking), bipolar (extreme mood swings) and seizures (temporary disruption of brain…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-09-10 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — patternProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from physical abuse for 4 of 6 residents (Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4 and Resident #5) reviewed for abuse. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 was free from physical abuse when Resident #2 was slapped on the neck by Resident #3 on 01/21/2025. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 was free from physical abuse when Resident #2 was punched on the arm by Resident #3 on 05/18/2025. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #5 was free from physical abuse when Resident #4 pushed Resident #5 causing him to fall on 07/02/2025. These failures could place residents at risk for emotional distress, fear, decreased quality of life and further abuse.Findings included: Resident #2Record review of Resident #2's admission Record dated 09/08/2025 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female who was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Huntington'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.
Show the remaining 23 citations
- Potential for harm · E2025-09-10 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to have evidence that all allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, were thoroughly investigated for 4 of 6 residents (Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4 and Resident #5) reviewed for abuse and neglect. 1. The facility did not thoroughly investigate an incident in which Resident #2 was slapped on the neck by Resident #3 on 01/21/2025. 2. The facility did not investigate an incident in which Resident #2 was punched on the arm by Resident #3 on 05/18/2025. 3. The facility did not thoroughly investigate an incident in which Resident #4 pushed Resident #5 causing him to fall on 07/02/2025. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse/neglect and could lead to a diminished quality of life and psychosocial harm. The findings included: Resident #2Record review of Resident #2's admission Record dated 09/08/2025 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female who was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses 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 · E2025-09-10 · 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 interviews, and record review, the facility failed to review and revise resident's comprehensive care plans by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment to reflect the current condition for 2 of 12 (Resident #2 and Resident #3) residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's care plan was updated to indicate Resident #2 had received aggression during a resident-to-resident incident on 01/21/2025 and 05/18/2025. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3's care plan was updated to indicate Resident #3 had an incident of resident-to-resident aggression on 01/21/2025 and 05/18/2025. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not receiving appropriate interventions to meet their current needs. The findings included: Resident #2Record review of Resident #2's admission Record dated 09/08/2025 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female who was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Huntington's disease (causes…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-10 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse were reported, immediately but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events that cause the allegation involves abuse or results in serious bodily injury, to the State Survey Agency for 1 of 5 residents (Residents #2) reviewed for reporting allegations of abuse. The facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the state agency within 2 hours after Resident #3 punched Resident #2 in the arm on 05/18/2025. The failures could place residents at risk of not having allegations reported within the required timeframes. Findings included: Record review of Resident #2's admission Record dated 09/08/2025 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female who was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Huntington's disease (causes nerve cells in the brain to decay over time and the disease affects a person's movements, thinking ability and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-10 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to establish a system of receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable accurate reconciliation and determine that drug records were in order and that an account of all controlled drugs were maintained and periodically reconciled for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #6) reviewed for controlled medications. * LVN X and RN Y did not count the narcotic medications during the shift change to ensure the count was correct and all narcotics had an Inventory Sheet. * Resident #6's hydrocodone 5 mg /acetaminophen 325 mg (narcotic pain medication for moderate or severe pain) were not counted and did not have an Inventory Sheet on 10/04/24. This failure could place residents at risk for medication overdose, medication under-dose, ineffective therapeutic outcomes, and drug diversion. Findings included: Record review of the face sheet dated 09/10/25 indicated Resident #6 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-10-02 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received and the facility provided food prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance and were palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food and nutrition services. The facility did not ensure the chicken wrap and potato salad served for lunch on 10/01/24 were palatable. These failures could place the residents at risk of a decline in their satisfaction and weight loss. Findings included: During confidential interviews on initial rounds on 9/30/24 from 9:38 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., the residents complained about the food tasting bad and not being edible at times. During an observation and interview on 10/01/24 at 1:14 p.m., the test tray contained a chicken ranch wrap, potato salad and pear crisp with topping. The chicken wrap was not wrapped and appeared to be a taco. The meat in the tortilla was breaded and appeared soggy, lettuce appeared fresh, tomatoes appeared canned, with ranch dressing. The meat did not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-10-02 · 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 under sanitary conditions for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for dietary services. The facility failed to ensure food items were properly labeled with product and expiration date in the freezers. The facility failed to properly close items stored in the freezers. These failures could place residents, who ate meals prepared in the kitchen, at risk for food borne illness. Findings included: During an observation and interview with the Dietary Manager on 09/30/2024 at 8:52 a.m. the following were observed: -Freezer #1 contained: A large, opened bag of okra that was not labeled or dated. An opened sleeve of waffles that was not labeled or dated. A large, opened bag of corn that was not labeled or dated. An opened bag of squash that was not labeled or dated and had not been properly closed and was exposed to air. Pieces of frozen squash were scattered throughout the freezer. -Freezer #2 contained: An open bag of okra that was not labeled or dated and had not been properly closed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-02 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received an accurate assessment, reflective of the resident's status for 2 of 17 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments. (Resident #s 5 and 54) The facility did not accurately complete the MDS assessment to indicate Resident #5 was receiving an anticoagulant medication. The facility did not accurately complete the MDS assessment to indicate Resident #54 was receiving an anticoagulant medication. This failure could place the residents at risk of not receiving the appropriate care and services to maintain their highest level of well-being. Findings included: 1. Record review of a face sheet dated 10/02/24 indicated Resident #5 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included embolism (sudden blocking of an artery) and thrombosis (formation of a blood clot inside a blood vessel) of her left lower extremity on 02/20/24. Record review of the physician's orders dated 10/02/24 indicated Resident #5…
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 · D2024-10-02 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 17 residents. (Resident #5) The facility failed to develop a care plan for Resident #5's anticoagulant (blood thinner) medication, Eliquis. This failure could place the residents at risk of not receiving care and services to maintain their highest level of well-being. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated 10/02/24 indicated Resident #5 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included embolism (sudden blocking of an artery) and thrombosis (formation of a blood clot inside a blood vessel) of her left lower extremity on 02/20/24. Record review of physician's orders dated 10/02/24 indicated Resident #5 was prescribed Eliquis 2.5 mg two times…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-02 · 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 (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) in 1 of 3 medication carts reviewed (Hall B and right side of Hall C Nurse medication cart) in that: An insulin pen of Insulin Glargine yfgn (used to lower blood sugar) with an open date of 08/03/24, had been expired for 60 days and not removed from use. This failure could place residents at risk for accidents, hazards, and not receiving therapeutic effects of medication. The findings included: Record review of Resident #26's face sheet dated 10/02/24 indicated an [AGE] year-old male admitted [DATE] with diagnoses included: end stage renal disease (disease in which the kidneys lose the ability to remove waste and balance fluids) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (trouble controlling blood sugar). Record review of Resident #26's quarterly MDS assessment with an ARD of 07/16/24 indicated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-02 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed for 1 of 3 meals reviewed for menus and nutritional adequacy. (Lunch meal 10/01/24) The facility did not ensure the recipes were followed for the chicken wrap and potato salad served for lunch on 10/01/24. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their nutritional needs met. Findings included: During an observation and interview on 10/01/24 at 1:14 p.m., the test tray contained a chicken ranch wrap, potato salad and pear crisp with topping. The chicken wrap was not wrapped and appeared to be a taco. The meat in the tortilla was breaded and appeared soggy, lettuce appeared fresh, tomatoes appeared canned, with ranch dressing. The meat did not taste like chicken, and it was wet, soggy, and jelly like. The inside of the patties tasted burnt and appeared grey in color. The potato salad had a strong unsavory flavor of garlic. The DM said he did not taste the food when preparing it and he did not follow the recipes. He refused to taste the food because he said he did not…
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 before2024-09-19 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from abuse for 2 of 11 residents reviewed for abuse. (Resident #1 and #2) The facility failed to protect Resident #1 from inappropriate sexual touching by Resident #2. This failure could place residents at risk of for psychosocial harm and a diminished quality of life. Findings included: 1. Record review of a face sheet dated 09/17/2024, indicated Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old female, with an admission date of 09/30/2015 with diagnoses including Dementia (loss of cognitive functioning), Bipolar Disorder (mental disorder associated with episodes of mood swings ranging from depressive lows to manic highs), Cirrhosis of the liver (a condition in which healthy tissue is replaced with scar tissue), anxiety disorder (persistent and excessive worry that interferes with daily activities) and depressive disorder (mental illness that negatively affects how you feel, the way you think and how you act). Record…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-09-20 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
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 they had a full time DON and failed to ensure the had an RN for 8 consecutive hours 7 days a week for 6 of 6 months reviewed for RN coverage. * The facility did not have a full-time DON between 9/02/23 and 9/18/23. * The facility did not have RN coverage for 8 consecutive hours on Saturday and Sunday. These failures could place residents at risk of lack of nursing oversight and a higher level of care. 1. During an interview upon entrance on 09/18/23 at 08:46 a.m. the ADM said she had no full time DON and will call to try and get interim back. During an interview on 09/19/23 at 10:35 a.m. the ADM said the previous DON's last day was 07/21/23. She said the Interim DON originally began on 07/24/23. She said the Interim DON was off on 07/25/25 but they did have RN coverage for the day. She said the interim DON contract ended on 09/01/23. She said she thought the Interim DON was going to stay until October 2nd. She said she renewed the contract for the Interim DON on Monday 09/18/23. During an interview on 09/20/23 at…
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 · F2023-09-20 · tag F0801 — widespreadEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to employ sufficient staff with appropriate competencies and skill sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service for 1 of 1 facility kitchen. The facility failed to designate a person to serve as the Dietary Manager who met the required qualifications. The facility designated Dietary Manager did not have a Dietary Managers certification or any other qualifying credentials. This failure could place residents at risk for the spread of foodborne illness and residents not having their nutritional needs met. The findings include: Record review of the personnel file for the DM indicated documentation that she had completed the certified Dietary Manager course on 07/27/23 and she had not completed the final certification test or other qualifying credentials. She had a date of hire of 07/06/23. During an interview on 9/19/23 at 10:07 a.m., the DM said since she started the position of DM, she had completed the certified Dietary Manager course and had not taken the final certification test. She said she had a food…
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 · Fcited before2023-09-20 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 under sanitary conditions in the kitchen reviewed for dietary services. The facility failed to prevent the following: Two of 4 freezers had 3-to-4-inch layer of buildup of ice. The juice dispenser nozzle (gun) had thick buildup of black and red substance on the inside of the nozzle. The deep fryer contained very dark grease with particles of food debris and had an odor. Food items were not properly labeled with product and expiration date in the refrigerator. The grates on the stove had buildup of black substance. These failures could place residents, who ate meals prepared in the kitchen, at risk for food borne illness. Findings included: During an observation and interview with the DM on 9/18/23 from 8:30 a.m. through 9:45 a.m. revealed: Two of the 4 freezers in the kitchen had a thick buildup (approximately 3-4 inches) of ice and frost along the inside walls of the freezers. The DM said the freezers needed to be defrosted and she was responsible for dethawing 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 · F2023-09-20 · tag F0851 — widespreadElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to follow guidelines for mandatory submission of staffing information based on payroll data in a uniform format. The facility failed to submit direct care staffing information on the schedule specified by CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services), but no less frequently than quarterly for 1 of 3 quarters reviewed for payroll data information. *The facility failed to submit staffing information to CMS for the 3rd quarter of the fiscal year 2023. This failure could place residents at risk for personal needs not being identified and met, decreased quality of care, decline in health status, and decreased feelings of well-being within their living environment. Findings included: Record Review of the facility's Civil Rights form (3761) dated 09/18/23 indicated the following: 5 RN's 14 LVNs 19 Direct Care Staff 8 Dietary 6 Housekeeping & Laundry 20 All Others Record review of the CMS PBJ Staffing Data Report (payroll-based staffing), CASPER Report (Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Report)1705 D FY Quarter 3 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 · Ecited before2023-09-20 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the resident status for 5 of 5 residents (Residents #9, #18, #31, #40, and #58) reviewed for MDS assessment accuracy. The facility did not ensure Residents #9, #18, #31, #40, and #58 assessment was accurately coded to reflect falls since the previous assessment. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving care and services to meet their needs. Findings included: 1. Record review of a face sheet dated 09/20/23 indicated Resident #9 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. Record review of Incident Reports Log for 04/23 through 09/23 indicated Resident #9 had a fall on 04/13/23. Record review of an MDS dated [DATE] for Resident #9 indicated it was incorrectly marked as she had 2+ falls since the last assessment. Record review of Resident #9's MDSs indicated her last assessment prior to 06/20/23 was 04/06/23. Record review of the care plan dated 11/17/22 for Resident #9 indicated it was…
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 before2023-09-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards 2 of 2 residents reviewed for smoking safety assessments and 7 of 7 residents reviewed for fall risk assessments. The facility did not have Smoking-Safety Screens completed for Residents #9, and #13. The facility did not have Fall Risk Assessments completed for Residents #9, #18, #29, #31, #40, #54, and #58 after they had a fall. These failures could place residents at risk of harm or injury and contribute to avoidable accidents. Findings included: 1. Record review of a face sheet dated 09/20/23 indicated Resident #9 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] . Record review of an annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #9 was a smoker. Record review care plan dated 07/08/22 Indicated Resident #9 was at risk for injury related to smoking, also uses smokeless dipping tobacco. The unsafe smoker interventions included to: Inform the resident 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 · E2023-09-20 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — patternEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents receiving enteral feeding received appropriate care and services to prevent complication of enteral feeding for 3 of 3 residents (Residents #14, #44, and #57) reviewed for enteral feeding. The facility failed to initiate dietician recommendations for Resident #14. LVN F force flushed water through Resident #44's G-tube that was clogged. LVN G failed to check Resident #57's G-tube placement by aspirating for residual feeding before enteral administration of medications. These failures could place residents receiving enteral nutrition and medications at increased risk of not receiving the proper nutrition, infection, and aspiration. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #14's face sheet indicated she was [AGE] years old and admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of tracheostomy (surgical opening in the windpipe). Record review of Resident 14's physician orders dated September 2023 indicated NPO (Nothing by Mouth)…
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 before2023-09-20 · 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 facility failed to ensure the menu met the nutritional needs of residents in accordance with established national guidelines, be prepared in advance and was followed for two of three meals (lunch on 09/18/23 and breakfast on 09/19/23) reviewed for food and nutrition services. The facility failed to ensure the menu was followed for the lunch on 09/18/23 The facility failed to ensure the menu was followed for the breakfast meal on 09/19/23 These deficient practice could place residents at risk of dissatisfaction, poor intake, and/or weight loss. Findings include: During an observation on 09/18/23 at 12:30 p.m., a posted menu in the dining room indicated the lunch meal was Lunch: Slow-Cooked Beef Tips in Gravy, Steamed Rice, Seasoned Mixed Vegetables and Chocolate Chip Cookies. During observations on 09/18/23 at 12:35 p.m. in the dining room revealed the residents were served chocolate chip cookies with no chocolate chips. Some of the cookies were very brown and the residents were unable to eat them. During a confidential interview,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-09-20 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide food in a form designed to meet individual needs for reviewed for food form. The facility failed to ensure the residents who required a pureed textured diet, received the appropriate food form to meet their needs on 9/19/23 for the noon meal. The pureed broccoli had small pieces and strings of the broccoli was not fully pureed and smooth consistency. This failure could place the residents at risk of aspiration and choking. Findings included: During an interview and observation on 09/19/23 at 11:30 a.m. [NAME] H said she was the person responsible for pureeing the food and had been trained on pureeing food on hire. She said the roasted broccoli takes longer to puree thoroughly as she placed the broccoli in the food processor. She placed a piece of bread into the processor and said this helps make broccoli smooth. During an observation of a test tray on 09/19/23 at 12:55 p.m., the pureed broccoli had small pieces and had stringy texture. The regional nurse tasted the pureed broccoli and said the food did…
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 · D2023-09-20 · tag F0646 — isolatedNotify the appropriate authorities when residents with MD or ID services has a significant change in condition.
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 notify the state mental health authority or state intellectual disability authority, as applicable, promptly after a significant change in the mental or physical condition of a resident who had mental illness or intellectual disability for 1 of 18 residents (Residents #54) reviewed for PASARR. The facility failed to notify the local mental health authority after Resident #54's significant change in mental illness diagnosis following a new diagnosis of psychosis. This failure could place residents requiring PASARR services at risk of not having their special needs assessed and met by the facility. Findings include: Record review of face sheet dated 09/20/23 indicated Resident #54 was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Huntington's disease (inherited disorder that cause nerve cells in the brain to breakdown and die) and an adjustment disorder with anxiety. The diagnosis related to unspecified psychosis not due to 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 · E2023-08-30 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — patternDevelop 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to implement their written policies and procedures to prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property for 4 of 16 residents (Resident #s 1, 2, 3, and 5) reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility failed to ensure all allegations of abuse or neglect were reported to the administrator immediately and failed to ensure the abuse coordinator and/or designee reported immediately to HHSC after: Facility staff noted suspicious bruises to Resident #1's perianal area on 03/27/23. The administrator was not notified until 04/01/23. Resident #2 alleged Resident #5 slapped her face, and Resident #5 grabbed Resident #3's inner thigh. These failures could place residents at risk of abuse, physical harm, mental anguish, and emotional distress. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated 08/30/23 indicated Resident #1 was an [AGE] year-old female, admitted on [DATE], and her diagnoses included…
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 before2023-08-30 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury for 4 of 16 residents (Resident #s 1, 2, 3, and 5) reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility failed to ensure the abuse coordinator and/or designee reported immediately to HHSC after: they were made aware of suspicious bruises to Resident #1's perianal area, Resident #2 alleged Resident #5 slapped her face, and Resident #5 grabbed Resident #3's inner thigh. These failures could place residents at risk of emotional, physical, and mental abuse. Findings included: Record review of a face sheet dated 08/30/23 indicated Resident #1 was an [AGE] year-old female, admitted on [DATE], and her diagnoses included hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness or the inability 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.
“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
$8,281 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,281 — penalty dated 2025-09-10
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PARADIGM HEALTHCARE — 17 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 1.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 1.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
The other 16 homes this chain runs (chain average 1.9★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| FREUDENBERGER, JOSEPH | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/19/2007 |
| ZERWAS, JOHN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 06/19/2007 |
| COUNCIL, JEFF | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2013 |
| CRAYTON, TOM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2013 |
| DOUDS, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/19/2016 |
| HALEY, JEFF | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2012 |
| MARTIN, MELISSA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2015 |
| MEFFORD, RUTHANNE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2015 |
| PETROSEWICZ, NORMA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2013 |
| POPATIA, AMIRALI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2011 |
| UTHMAN, EDWARD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2008 |
| OAKBEND MEDICAL CENTER | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/31/2017 |
| PINES NURSING & REHABILITATION LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/01/2022 |
| SSC SILSBEE OPERATING COMPANY LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/31/2017 |
| SHKOP, AHARON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 15 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.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 675391. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-10, 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.