Discovery Village At Southlake
201 Watermere Drive, Southlake, TX 76092 · For profit - Corporation · 41 certified beds · (817) 482-1340 Medicare only — no Medicaid
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- 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 (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $12,649 in federal fines (most recent 2023-09-29)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating 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.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 12.8% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 3.0% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 10.6% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 6.7% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.3% | 2.4% | 6.5% | worse 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 | 12.0% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.0% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.6% | 3.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 8.4% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.5% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 69.3% | 88.0% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 38.8% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.7% | 12.3% | 12.0% | typical |
* 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.
65.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 276 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 58.0% 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 88 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 0.63 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 89% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% 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 | 65.7%CMS range 60.8–71.7 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.4%CMS range 8.1–13.5 | 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 | 58.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 58.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 46.6% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 discharge | 97.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.3% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.4%CMS range 5.9–11.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.10 | 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 41 beds and averages 39.6 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 1 bed typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.63 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.85 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.86 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.31 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.76 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.94 to 0.63 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2023-09-29 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 1 (Resident #1) of two residents reviewed for medication administration. LVN A failed to transcribe the correction medication list when Resident #1 was discharged from the hospital back to the facility, which led to Resident #1 being administered incorrect medications from 09/14/23 to 09/16/23 which were originally for Resident #2. The IJ (Immediate Jeopardy) was identified as past noncompliance (PNC) on 09/14/23 and ended on 09/16/23. The facility provided sufficient evidence that all alleged violations were investigated, corrected, further medication errors prevented, and was in substantial compliance after the exit date of the last standard recertification and before the abbreviated survey began. This deficient practice could affect residents who…
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 · D2026-06-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to 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 disease and infections for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #40) reviewed for infection control.1.The facility failed to ensure CNA A performed hand hygiene in between glove changes while providing toileting care for Resident #40.2.The facility failed to ensure CNA A disinfected surfaces with acceptable disinfecting wipe. These failures could result in infection. Findings included:Record review of Resident #40's admission MDS assessment, dated 5/17/2026, revealed the resident was an [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of leg fracture, spine fracture, diabetes mellitus, and pain. The MDS also indicated the resident was dependent on toileting. Record review of Resident #40's care plan, dated 5/12/2026, revealed the resident was care planned…
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 · D2026-06-04 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility must provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public for 1 (Resident #32) of 10 resident rooms reviewed for smoke detectors. The facility failed to ensure Resident #32 had a functional smoke detector installed in his room. This failure could result in an unsafe environment. Findings included:Findings included: Record review of Resident #32 face sheet dated 06/02/26 reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE]. During an interview and observation on 06/02/26 at 10:45 A.M., Resident #32's family member stated his smoke detector would not stop beeping last week and an unknown staff member took it down. Resident # 32's family member stated she had mentioned it to one of the nurses about the smoke detector missing. Observed that the smoke detector was missing from the room. Attempted interview on 06/02/26 at 11:10 A.M., revealed Resident# 32 was not interviewable. During an interview 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 · Ecited before2025-11-12 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop a care plan to address Resident #1's needs as follows:1. Stage 2 wound on his bottom (pressure ulcer)2. Right heel edema (leg swelling)3. Bowl movement changes due to ileus (this is temporary slowing or cessation of intestinal movement)4. Disease process Colitis (this is inflammation of the colon which may cause abdominal pain, diarrhea and sometimes blood in stool)5. Use of high blood pressure medication Lisinopril6. Lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (urinary difficulty due to enlarged prostate)7. Use of blood thinner Enoxaparin for…
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 · D2025-11-12 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, maintain medical records on each resident that were complete and accurately documented for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accurate medical records. The facility failed to ensure accurately documented skilled nurse notes for Resident #1 on 10/16/25 when RN A documented Resident #1 was a female, he had a left hip fracture, was forgetful, had poor motor coordination, and had balance problems when standing. This failure could place residents at risk for incorrect treatment decisions, evaluation, and treatment plans compromising patient safety due to insufficient information and could cause confusion about the residents' care and place residents at risk for harm due to inaccurate records. Findings include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet reflected an [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included high…
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 before2025-04-11 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights for 4 of 7 residents (Resident #3, #5, #30, and Resident #34) reviewed for care plans in that: Residents #3, #5, #30, and Resident #34 use of bed rails/grab/transfer bars were not documented in their care plans. The facility's failure placed residents requiring care at risk of not having their individual needs met, not receiving necessary care and services, and a failure to ensure continuity of care. Findings included: Resident #3 Record Review of Resident #'3s Face Sheet reflected an [AGE] year-old male who initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #3 had relevant diagnoses of Unspecified Atrial Fibrillation (a type of arrhythmia where the heart's upper chambers (atria) beat irregularly and out of sync with the lower chambers (ventricles), and the specific details about its behavior (how long it lasts, how…
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 before2025-04-11 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to assess the risks and benefits of bed rails with the resident or resident representative and obtain informed consent prior to installation for 4 of 7 residents (Resident #3, #5, #30, and Resident #34) rooms observed for bed rails/grab/transfer bars. The facility did not have informed consent and assessment of the residents for appropriateness or risk of entrapment for bed rails or grab/transfer bars for Residents #3, #5, #30, and Resident #34. This failure could place residents who used bed rails/grab/transfer bars at risk of injury or entrapment not being assessed for appropriateness for bed rails or grab bars, resident/responsible party not being aware of the risks posed by bed rails/grab/transfer bars, and informed consent for the potential dangers posed by grab/transfer bars or bed rails not being obtained from the resident or responsible party. Findings included: Resident #3 Record Review of Resident #'3s Face Sheet reflected an…
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 before2025-04-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 safety in the facility's only kitchen observed for food safety. 1. The facility failed to remove five dented cans from the dry food storage area. 2. The facility failed to label a plastic container in the dry food storage area. The failures could place residents at risk for food-borne illness. Findings included: In an observation on 04/09/25 at 10:35 AM of the dry food storage area reflected one plastic container, with a white substance that was not labeled. In an observation on 04/09/25 at 10:42 AM of the dry food storage area reflected the following: *one dented can labeled black eyed peas on the third wired rack of the shelf, *one dented can labeled great northern beans on the second wired rack of the shelf, *two dented cans labeled green beans on the last wired rack of the shelf, and *one dented can labeled black beans on the fourth wired rack of the shelf. In an interview on 04/09/25 at 10:37 AM, the DS stated 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 · Fcited before2024-03-14 · 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 in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation and storage. The facility failed to ensure the thermometer used in the refrigerator read the accurate temperature. This failure could place residents at risk of foodborne illness. Findings included: Observation and interview on 03/12/2024 at 8:59 AM revealed the thermometer hanging on one of the shelves inside of the refrigerator read 50 degrees F. The Assistant Dietary Manager read the thermometer at 50 degrees F and stated she could put another thermometer inside. She said the temperature should be 41 degrees or below. She said the built-in thermometer on the outside of the refrigerator read 37 degrees F. Observation on 03/13/2024 at 11:55 AM revealed a different thermometer inside the refrigerator that read 36 degrees F. Interview on 03/14/2024 at 11:47 AM the Dietary Manager stated she or the cook was responsible to verify the temperature 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 · F2024-03-14 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly for 1 out of 1 kitchen observed. The facility failed to have a garbage can near the handwashing sink. The facility failed to ensure garbage cans with lids were used in the kitchen. This failure could place residents at risk for foodborne illness. Findings included: Observation and interview on 03/12/2024 at 8:59 AM, revealed there was no trash can with a lid near the handwashing sink. The Assistant Dietary Manager stated they had a step trash can, but it was broken, and another one was supposed to be in today. She moved a garbage can without a lid (that was not in use) from the food prep area and put it near the sink. She stated the garbage can was supposed to have a lid for cross contamination. Interview on 03/14/2024 at approximately 11:47 am, the Dietary Manager stated she got three step trash cans with lids and placed them in the kitchen. Interview on 03/14/2024 at 5:42 PM, the Interim Administrator stated the reason for a step trash can was to ensure staff 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 · F2024-03-14 · 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 electronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information for quarter review for Fiscal year Quarter 1 of 2024 (October 1- December 31, 2023). The facility failed to submit RN staff hours for 11/12/23, 12/02/23, 12/03/23, 12/17/23, 12/24/23, and 12/30/23. Findings included: Review of the CMS PBJ report for Fiscal Year Quarter 1 of 2024 (October 1- December 31, 2023) reflected No RN Hours was triggered, for lack of RN coverage on 11/12/23, 12/02/23, 12/03/23, 12/17/23, 12/24/23, and 12/30/23. Review of RN time stamp detail sheets for DON and direct care schedules for 11/12/23, 12/02/23, 12/03/23, 12/17/23, 12/24/23, and 12/30/23 reflected sufficient RN coverage on those dates. An interview with DON on 03/13/24 at 03:45 PM revealed that she was responsible for scheduling the nurses. She said that if there was no RN on duty for the day, she would come into work. DON provided RN hours on 11/12/23, 12/02/23, 12/03/23, 12/17/23, 12/24/23, and 12/30/23. She said that because she was a salaried employee,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-03-14 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — patternKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 had a right to secure and confidential personal and medical records for 1 (back hallway) of 2 hallways reviewed for privacy and confidentiality. The facility failed to ensure private and confidential clinical records were not left in the back hallway unattended. This deficient practice could place residents at-risk for lack of privacy and confidentiality. The findings included: Continuous observation on 03/14/24 from 11:18 AM to 11:32 AM revealed 3 pages of clinical records titled Midnight Census Report dated 03/13/24. Noted on the printed documents were visible first and last names of residents, room numbers, care levels, and primary payer information. The documents were visible, face up, on a clip board, on top of a bedside table left in the open back hallway near resident's rooms. The bedside table contained menus as well. The documents appeared to have been left by someone who might have entered one of the residents' rooms in the back hallway. Upon entry into the residents' rooms…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-14 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents who were incontinent of bowel and bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and restore as much bowel functions as possible for 1 of 1 (Resident #127) residents reviewed for bowel and blader incontinence. Facility failed to obtain physician orders for Resident #130's suprapubic indwelling catheter, catheter care, and maintenance (A suprapubic catheter is surgically implanted between the urinary bladder and the skin used to drain urine from the bladder). This failure could place residents at risk of infection. Findings included: Review of Resident #130's admission Records dated 03/13/24 revealed an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to facility on 03/01/24 with diagnoses including pressure ulcer (injury to skin and tissue due to pressure) of sacral region and paraplegia (paralysis in lower half of body). Review of Resident #130's order summary dated 03/13/24 did not reflect…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-14 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents who need respiratory care are provided with such care, consistent with professional standards of practices for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #127) reviewed for respiratory care. Facility failed to obtain physician orders for Resident #127 to use, care, and maintain a CPAP machine. A CPAP machine is Continuous Positive Airways Pressure machine to keep breathing airways open while sleeping. These failures could place residents who receive respiratory care at risk of developing infections and a decreased quality of care. Findings Included: Review of Resident #127's admission Record dated 03/13/24 reflected an [AGE] year old female admitted to facility on 03/05/24 with diagnoses that included Asthma (a condition in which the airway becomes inflamed, narrowed and swells), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/COPD (a group of lung disease that block airflow and make it difficult to breath), Sleep apnea ( a potentially serious…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-14 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assess the residents for risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation, review the risks and benefits of bed rails with the resident or resident representative and obtain informed consent prior to installation of bed rails for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 11) reviewed for bed rails. The facility failed to ensure physician orders were written for bed rail use for Resident #11. This failure could place residents at risk of injury. Findings Included: 1. Review of Resident #11's admission Records dated 03/13/24 revealed an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to facility on 03/15/23. Her diagnoses included senile degeneration of brain (a condition that causes a significant cognitive decline in abilities, memory, and language), muscle weakness, abnormalities of gait and mobility, repeated falls, depression, arthritis (a degenerative joint disease), difficulty in walking, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, altered mental status (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.
“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
$12,649 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $12,649 — penalty dated 2023-09-29
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HCRI TUCSON PROPERTIES INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 98% | since 04/01/2019 |
| DENOVELLIS, AARON | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 04/01/2019 |
| DUNCAN, LAWRENCE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 04/01/2019 |
| HUTCHINSON, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 04/01/2019 |
| WIERZBICKI, STEVE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2019 |
| AMERICAN TRUST SENIOR CARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2019 |
| SMITH, RANDY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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.
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
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Texas Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 676351. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-04, 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.