Sugar Land Health Care Center
333 Matlage Way, Sugar Land, TX 77478 · Non profit - Corporation · 150 certified beds · (281) 491-2226 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- inspectors recorded 2 serious findings 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 (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $30,494 in federal fines (most recent 2025-05-27)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 16.0% | 15.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.6% | 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 | 0.7% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.5% | 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 | 4.1% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.2% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.1% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.7% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.1% | 3.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 9.3% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.5% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.8% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 76.7% | 88.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.8% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.0% | 12.3% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.24 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.56 | 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.
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.
50.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 98 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 64.2% 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 95 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 26% 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 | 50.4%CMS range 40.9–61.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.2%CMS range 8.4–16.2 | 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 | 64.2% | 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 | 67.4% | 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 | 46.3% | 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 | 93.9% | 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 | 66.3% | 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 | 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 | 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 | 2.7% | 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 | 6.4%CMS range 4.2–11.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.03 | 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 150 beds and averages 93.5 residents a day — about 62% occupied, or roughly 56 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 3.59 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.31 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.21 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 3.23 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.74 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.35 to 0.21 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 41% 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
17 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-05-27 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 (CR #1) of 5 residents reviewed for quality of care. -The facility failed to ensure treatment and care was provided to CR #1 consistent with professional standards of practice. CR #1, who was prescribed an anticoagulant, had a fall hitting her head on [DATE] at approximately 9:00 p.m. NP A recommended CR #1 be sent to the hospital immediately. Transport was not dispatched until 11:27 p.m. and CR #1 was not transported to the hospital until 12:48 a.m. on [DATE] where she later passed away. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on [DATE]. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 10:27 a.m. While the IJ was removed on [DATE], the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm due to the facility continuing to monitor 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2023-08-22 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 (Resident #2) of 4 residents reviewed for accidents in that: -Physical Therapy Assistant performed a two person transfer alone on 08/18/23. Resident #2 suffered right femur fracture that was identified via X-ray on 08/19/23. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The IJ began on 8/18/23 and ended on 8/21/23.The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure can place residents at risk of injury, pain, hospitalization and a diminished quality of life. Findings include: Record review of Resident #2's face sheet revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease (A progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions), type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications (A chronic…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2023-01-26 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — patternProvide 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 maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight or desirable body weight range and electrolyte balance, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrated that it was not possible or resident preferences indicated otherwise for 10 of 86 residents (Resident #56, #7, #44, #59, #18, #23, #72, #5, #14, and #45) reviewed for weight loss. 1. The facility failed to obtain accurate monthly weights for Resident #56. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #56 had appropriate interventions in place to prevent a severe weight loss of 39.3 % from 10/10/22 to 1/17/23. 3. The facility failed to obtain accurate monthly weights for residents from October 2022 to January 2023. The facility identified 10 (Residents #56, #7, #44, #59, #18, #23, #72, #5, #14, and #45) of 86 residents sustained significant and/or severe weight loss when an accurate weight was obtained by facility staff in January 2023. The noncompliance 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 before2025-12-17 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide 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 assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of 1 (CR #1) of 4 residents reviewed for pharmacy services.-CR #1's hospital discharge orders were not transcribed properly to the resident's facility admission orders. CR #1 did not receive the correct dose of Divalproex Sodium.This failure could result in CR #1 not receiving the correct dose of anti-seizure medication.Findings include: Review of the admission Record for CR #1 revealed she was [AGE] years old and was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included Localization-related (focal) (partial) symptomatic epilepsy and epileptic syndromes with complex partial seizures (seizure disorder), cerebral infarction (condition where blood flow to a part of the brain is disrupted, resulting in brain-tissue death), and hypertension (high blood pressure). She 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 · D2025-12-17 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
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 a nurse aide was able to demonstrate competency in skills and techniques necessary to care for residents' needs, as identified through resident assessments, and described in the plan of care for one (CR #2) of five residents reviewed for assistance with meals. -An unidentified staff supported CR #2's food dish on the staff's lap as she fed the resident. The failure placed the resident at risk for acquiring food-borne illness.Findings include: Record review of the admission Record for CR #2 revealed he was [AGE] years old, admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), lack of coordination, and muscle weakness. He was discharged from the facility on 08/08/2025. Record review of CR #2's 5-day admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed, he exhibited severely impaired cognition. He had impaired range-of-motion to both upper and lower extremities. He was dependent on staff for eating assistance.In 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 · E2025-05-27 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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 services that met professional standards of quality for 2 of 15 residents (Residents #55 and #24) reviewed for services. 1. Resident #55 failed to receive nine medications he was ordered to receive on 2/2/2025. 2. Resident #24 did not receive one medication 41 times from 04/20/2025 to 05/07/2025. These failures could place residents at risk of worsening of illnesses and not receiving the therapeutic dosage. Findings included: Resident #55 Record review of Resident #55's face sheet, he was an [AGE] year-old male originally admitted on [DATE] at 4:45 p.m. and discharged [DATE] to home. His medical diagnoses included metabolic encephalopathy (brain disorder caused by the body's metabolic processes and lead to impaired brain function), hyperlipidemia (high levels of fat in the blood), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuritis (a rare neurological disorder affecting the nerves and nerve roots and leading to weakness and paired motor function),…
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 before2025-05-27 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide 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 routine and emergency drugs and biologicals to its residents and 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 2 of 15 (Residents #55 and #24) reviewed for medication administration. 1. Resident #55 did not receive nine medications as ordered by the Physician on 2/2/2025. 2. Resident #24 did not receive one medication 41 times from 04/20/2025 to 05/07/2025. This failure could lead to a decline in residents' physical, mental and emotional health due to not receiving the medications and the therapeutic effects to treat their conditions as ordered by their physician. Findings included: Resident #55 Record review of Resident #55's face sheet, he was an [AGE] year-old male originally admitted on [DATE] at 4:45 p.m. and discharged [DATE] to home. His medical diagnoses included metabolic encephalopathy…
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 · D2025-05-27 · 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 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 2 of 19 residents (Residents #61 and #99) reviewed for infection control practices. -The facility failed to ensure CNA A followed proper infection control, cleaning and hand hygiene for Resident #61 during incontinent care. CNA A double gloved, CNA A failed to use a clean washcloth surface area and perform hand hygiene between glove changes during incontinent care. -LVN G checked Resident #99's blood glucose level with a lancet, then discarded the used lancet into the trash can in the resident's room. These failures could place residents at risk of infection or a decline in health. The findings included: Resident #61 Record review of Resident #61's admission face sheet undated revealed an [AGE] year-old female…
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 · D2024-03-07 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms were adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relays the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #12) reviewed for resident call system. The facility failed to ensure a call cord was in reach for Resident #12 on 03-05-24. This failure placed residents at risk of being unable to obtain assistance for activities of daily living or in the event of an emergency. Findings included: Record Review of Resident #12's face sheet revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Record Review of Resident #12's diagnoses revealed he had cerebral palsy (congenital disorder of movement, muscle tone, or posture), pressure ulcer of sacral region, stage 4, seizures, embolism, and thrombosis of unspecified deep veins of unspecified lower extremity (blood blots…
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 · D2024-03-07 · 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 one resident (Resident #147) of five residents reviewed for oxygen therapy was provided care that was consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences. -Resident #147 had an oxygen humidifier that was dated 02/19/2024, 10 days prior to his admission on [DATE], and possibly previously used by a different resident. Resident #147 had been recently admitted to the facility with respiratory compromise. The failure placed Residents at increased risk of infection. Findings included: Record review of the admission Record (printed 03/05/2024) revealed Resident #147 was [AGE] years old and was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, encephalopathy (a group of disorders that affect the brain and cause confusion, memory loss, and other mental changes), pleural effusion (buildup of fluids around the lungs), 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 · D2024-03-07 · 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, interviews, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with established food preparation practices and safety techniques in that; 1. Frozen food were thawed in a sink with no running and/or standing water. 2. Frozen food were thawed in a sink used for hand washing. This failure could cause food-borne illnesses as a result and could affect the residents who consumed food from the facility's only kitchen. Findings included: Observation of the kitchen on 03-05-24 at 08:47 a.m., revealed 2 of 2 sinks used for hand washing. Observation of the kitchen on 03-05-24 at 11:52 a.m. 3-10 pound loafs of sealed frozen ground beef in 1 of 2 sinks used for hand washing without being submerged in standing water or under running cold water. Observation of the lunch meal tray on 03-06-24 at 12:55 p.m., revealed a regular textured meal consisting of meat loaf, green beans, dinner roll, mashed potatoes and gravy, and pudding. The meal was visually presentable and was tasted and found palatable. Interview on 03-05-24 at 08:47…
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 · D2023-08-16 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for showers/baths. -Resident #1 did not receive showers as scheduled. This failure affected one resident and placed 88 residents requiring assistance with baths and showers at risk of not having the assistance with personal care which could cause skin breakdown and low self-esteem. Findings include: Record review of the admission Record (printed 08/16/2023) for Resident #1 revealed she was [AGE] years old, andold and was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, encephalopathy (disease that alters brain function), muscle weakness, and dementia. Record review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed no entry for Resident #1's cognitive status. The MDS reflected the resident required extensive assist of two persons for bed…
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 · D2023-08-16 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the clinical record were maintained in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices and were complete and accurately documented for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents records reviewed for medication and treatment documentation. -The nurse documented Resident #1 had pain patches applied, but they were not available. -The nurse documented Resident #1 had on compression hose on both legs, but the resident did not. The failure could place residents at risk for unaddressed pain, increased swelling, and risk of blood clots. Findings include: Record review of the admission Record (printed 08/16/2023) for Resident #1 revealed she was [AGE] years old and was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, encephalopathy (disease that alters brain function), muscle weakness, and dementia. The most recent diagnoses (06/13/2023) were acute embolism and thrombosis (blood clots) of unspecified deep…
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 before2023-01-26 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide 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 assured the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals to meet the needs of each resident and failed to establish a system of records of receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation for 3 of 6 residents (Residents #31, #29 and #67) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure LVN E administered Lorazepam (an antianxiety medication) to Resident #31 every 12 hours (twice per day) per physician's order and instead administered the medication three times per day. The facility failed to ensure LVN E administered Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen (a controlled medication used to treat moderate to severe pain) to Resident #29 every 4 hours, as ordered by the physician, and instead administered the medication every 2 hours. The facility failed to ensure LVN E signed 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 · E2023-01-26 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure in accordance with State and Federal laws, all drugs and biologicals were stored securely in locked compartments under proper temperature controls and permitted only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for two (Nurse Medication Cart D Hall and Nurse Medication Cart A Hall) of five medication carts (Nurse Medication Cart D Hall and Nurse Medication Cart A Hall) reviewed for storage of medications. 1. -The facility failed to ensure the Nurse Medication Cart D Hall was locked when unattended. 2. -The facility failed to ensure LVN B secured medications prior to leaving the medication cart unattended. These deficient practices could place residents at risk for loss of prescribed medications, resident's safety, and drug diversion. Findings included: 1. Observation on 01/23/2023 at 6:37 AM revealed Nurse Medication Cart D hall parked near room D6 and was unlocked and unattended by staff. LVN A was in room D6a behind the curtain with a resident. No staff, visitors or residents were in the hall.…
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 · D2023-01-26 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a PASRR screening was completed for residents with a mental disorder or an intellectual disability for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #54) reviewed for PASRR Level I screenings. The facility did not ensure an accurate PASRR level 1 screening (a preliminary assessment completed for all individuals prior to admission to a Medicaid-certified nursing facility to determine whether they might have a mental illness or intellectual disability) was completed for Resident #54. This failure could place residents at risk for a diminished quality of life and not receiving necessary care and services in accordance with individually assessed needs. Findings included: Record review of Resident #54's face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #54 had diagnoses which included unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition (a severe mental disorder…
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 · D2023-01-26 · 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 ensure comprehensive care plans were reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, which included both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments for 1 of 18 residents (Resident's #15) reviewed for care plan timing and revision. The facility failed to ensure Resident #15's care plan included her visual function, communication and dental care triggered on her admission MDS assessment dated [DATE]. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving needed care. Findings include: Record review of Resident #15's admission face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included, unspecified dementia (a group of symptoms affecting memory, thinking and social abilities) without behavioral, anxiety, Aphasia (a disorder that results from damage to portions of the brain that are responsible for language) hypertension (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.
“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
$30,494 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $14,901 — penalty dated 2025-05-27
- $15,593 — penalty dated 2023-08-22
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 HEALTH SERVICES MANAGEMENT — 16 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 | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 15 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| MURRELL, EDWARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| HSMTX/SUGAR LAND, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2024 |
| STAPLES, BERNADETTE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2024 |
| WHITE, JOSHUA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2024 |
| HEALTH SERVICES MANAGEMENT, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2024 |
| SUGAR LAND REALTY, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2024 |
| SOLIPURAM, ARUN KUMAR | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 7 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.
About 75% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 675538. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-27, 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.