Coldwater Manor
1111 Beaver Rd, Stratford, TX 79084 · Government - Hospital district · 26 certified beds · (806) 396-5568 Medicaid only — no Medicare
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (83%) 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 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 | 14.9% | 15.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 10.3% | 3.0% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.2% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.3% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.4% | 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 | 11.4% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.2% | 14.0% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.3% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.0% | 3.8% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.6% | 13.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.7% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.02 | 2.17 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.75 | 2.06 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 26 beds and averages 19.9 residents a day — about 77% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.99 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.27 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.86 is at or above 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 5.32 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.27 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.41 to 0.92 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 83% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-06-18 · 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, and serve food under sanitary conditions in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food and nutritional services, when they failed to: A. The facility failed to ensure kitchen staff used proper hand washing and sanitation procedures when handling food. This failure could cause decreased meal satisfaction and decreased meal consumption due to using unsanitary practices in the facility's only kitchen and could affect all residents in the facility that receive meals from the facility kitchen. Findings include: In an observation and interview on 6/16/25 at 12:00 pm, [NAME] A was observed in the kitchen with gloved hands serving the noon meal. [NAME] A changed her gloves, touched various kitchen surfaces, picked up a plate and the serving utensils. [NAME] A plated the food then used her gloved hand and picked up a roll. [NAME] A set the plate on the counter then picked up another plate. [NAME] A did not make any attempts to change her gloves or wash her hands. [NAME] A was asked if she realized she had…
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 before2025-06-18 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 residents had the right to formulate an advanced directive for 3 (Resident #8, #17, and #18) of 15 residents reviewed for advanced directives. Residents #8, #17, and #18 had a DNR in their records that was missing the date when the notary signed the form. The facility's failure could place residents a risk for not receiving healthcare as per their or their legal representatives wishes. Findings included: Resident #8: Record review of Resident #8's face sheet printed [DATE] revealed she was an [AGE] year-old female resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include unspecified dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning). Resident #8 was listed as a DNR. Record review of Resident #8's last MDS was a quarterly assessment completed [DATE] listing her with a BIMS score of 09 indicating she was moderately cognitively impaired, and she had a functionality of being dependent on staff…
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 · D2025-06-18 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to respect the residents right to personal privacy, including the right to privacy in his or her oral (that is, spoken), written, and electronic communications, including the right to send and promptly receive unopened mail and other letters, packages and other materials delivered to the facility for the resident, including those delivered through a means other than a postal service of 2 of 3 confidential residents interviewed. The facility did not deliver unopened mail for 2 of 3 resident interviewed during a confidential group interview. This failure could affect residents personal privacy and could result in decreased quality of life. Findings included: During a confidential group interview on 06/17/2025 at 2:00 PM two of three residents identified by the facility as being alert, oriented, and interview able, revealed that their mail was delivered open by the activity director. One confidential resident stated he had his mail opened twice and one confidential resident stated she had a card from her church opened once. Two…
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 · D2025-06-18 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an assessment accurately reflected a resident's status for 1 of 16 residents (Resident #18) reviewed for accuracy of MDS assessments. -The facility failed to accurately assess Resident #18 for the use of oxygen on her 06/04/25 quarterly MDS. This failure to accurately assess a resident could place residents at risk for inaccurate and incomplete MDS assessment which could result in residents not receiving correct care and services. Finding include: Record review of Resident #18's face sheet printed 06/16/25 revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include unspecified chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breath), chronic kidney disease (longstanding disease of the kidneys leading to kidney failure) and dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning). Record review of Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-18 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — isolatedHave 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 use the services of a registered nurse for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week. The facility did not have an RN in the facility on 4/5/25, in the 5 past months. This deficient practice had the potential to affect residents in the facility by leaving staff without supervisory coverage for coordination of events such as emergency care. Findings include: Record review of the facility's last 5 months of time sheets for RN coverage revealed that the facility did not have an RN in the facility on 4/5/25. During an interview on 6/17/25 at 10:15 am, the ADM stated she had only been at the facility for 3 weeks and was not aware of the RN coverage until now. She stated it was one day and the DON had surgery. The ADM stated the consequences of not having RN coverage were that it was against federal guidelines and that the facility needed to have an RN on duty every day. She stated she could not see any grave consequences or impact to residents by not having RN coverage for I day. During an interview on 6/17/25 at 11:15…
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 · D2025-06-18 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review; the facility failed to ensure medications were stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 1 (the medication room) of 2 medication storage areas reviewed for medication storage. The medication room refrigerator had medications that had been stored outside of the recommended storage temperatures. The facility's failure could result in a resident receiving a medication that would be ineffective for their treatment resulting in exacerbation of the resident's condition and disease processes. Findings included: Record review of the medication room's only refrigerator log for May 1, 2025, to June 17, 2025, revealed the following documented temperatures: (-per merriam-webster.com: freezing point of water is 32 degrees Fahrenheit.) 05/08/25 - 35 degrees Fahrenheit 05/09/25 - 32 degrees Fahrenheit 05/11/25 - 32 degrees Fahrenheit 05/16/25 - 34 degrees Fahrenheit 05/17/25 - 34 degrees Fahrenheit 05/18/25 - 32 degrees Fahrenheit 05/19/25 - 32 degrees Fahrenheit 05/20/25 - 32 degrees Fahrenheit 05/21/25 - 32…
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 before2024-05-15 · 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 food service safety. The facility failed to ensure stored food was properly labelled and dated. The facility failed to discard leftover food by use by date on the label. These failures could place residents at risk of food borne illness. Findings included: An observation on 05/13/24 at 09:30 AM of shelving in the kitchen revealed the following: A plastic lidded tub of what appeared to be heart-shaped cereal with no label and no date. A plastic lidded container of whipped vanilla frosting with an open date of 05/03/24. The lid was ballooning up as if pressure was inside the container. The manufacturer's instructions read to cover and refrigerate for up to 30 days after opening. A resealable plastic bag containing 12-15 bread-like objects in roundish asymmetrical shapes approximately 2-3 inches in diameter with no label or date. An observation on 05/13/24 at 09:33 AM of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-05-15 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 residents had the right to formulate an advanced directive for 1 (Resident #13) of 9 residents reviewed for advanced directives in that: Resident #13 had a DNR in her record with no physician information. This failure could place residents a risk for not receiving healthcare as per their or their legal representatives wishes. Findings included: Record review of Resident #13's face sheet printed 5-13-2024 revealed she was an [AGE] year-old female resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include cerebral infarction (occurs as a result of disrupted blood flow to the brain due to problems with the blood vessels that supply it), dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), aortic valve deficiency (condition in which the heart's aortic valve does not work properly), cardiac arrythmias (improper beating of the heart, whether irregular, too fast, or too slow), and atherosclerosis (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 · Fcited before2023-03-17 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food under sanitary conditions in 1 of 1 kitchens when they failed to: A. Ensure stored food were properly labeled and dated. B. Ensure that frozen foods were properly labeled and dated C. Ensure that expired foods were not in the pantry, refrigerator, and freezer. These failures could place residents who ate the food at risk for food-borne illness. Findings include: Observation of the refrigerator on 3/15/23 at 10:00AM revealed the following: 1. Thousand Island dressing opened 9/14/2022 with expiration date 11/3/22. 2. 1 gallon of vanilla extract with expiration date 6/22/2022. 3. 1 gallon of BBQ Sauce with expiration date 1/21/2023. 4. 1 open 8oz Boost nutritional drink which was not dated. 5. ½ bell pepper in a clear plastic bag which was not dated. 6. 1 2-pound bag of carrots which was not dated. 7. 1 clear bag of cilantro which was not dated. 8. 2 large bags of celery which were not dated. 9. 1 open 12oz.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in TX
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 45E947. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-18, 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.