Cornerstone Gardens LLP
763 Marlandwood Rd, Temple, TX 76505 · For profit - Individual · 130 certified beds · (254) 771-5950 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 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- 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 $15,757 in federal fines (most recent 2024-04-27)
- 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 | 5 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 5 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 | 10.5% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.0% | 3.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.7% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse 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 | 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 | 6.6% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.1% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 25.4% | 18.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.1% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.3% | 3.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 10.5% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.2% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 48.8% | 88.0% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.8% | 25.7% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.9% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.42 | 2.17 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.51 | 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.
55.9% 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 231 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 32.7% 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 110 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 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 37% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 55.9%CMS range 50.1–61.9 | 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 | 8.8%CMS range 6.1–11.9 | 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 | 32.7% | 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 | 33.6% | 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 | 26.4% | 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 | 98.3% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 98.8% | 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 | 7.8% | 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 | 5.1%CMS range 2.7–8.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.79 | 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 130 beds and averages 102.1 residents a day — about 79% occupied, or roughly 28 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 3.75 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.35 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.37 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 3.00 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.05 on weekdays — 26% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.41 to 0.19 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% 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 · J2024-04-27 · 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 observation, interviews and record review , the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for 1 (Resident #34) of 5 residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #34, who suffered a fall on 04/08/2024 at approximately 4:49 PM, resulting in an intertrochanteric fracture of the right hip was properly assessed, monitored, or provided effective pain management for over 15 hours until Resident #34 was transferred to the hospital at approximately 7:22 AM on 04/09/2024. An immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 04/24/2024 at 5:57 PM. While the IJ was removed on 04/27/2024 at 5:30 PM, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of no actual harm with a potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy because of the facility's need to evaluate 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 · J2024-04-27 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that pain management was provided to residents who required such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 5 residents (Residents #34) reviewed for pain management. The facility failed to ensure Resident #34 was routinely assessed, monitored, and received effective pain management after Resident #34 fell on [DATE] at approximately 4:49 PM and sustained an intertrochanteric fracture of the right hip and was not sent out to the hospital for treatment for over 15 hours until 04/09/2024 at approximately 7:22 AM. An immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 04/24/2024 at 5:57 PM. While the IJ was removed on 04/27/2024 at 5:30 PM, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of no actual harm with a potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy because of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-05-29 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
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 treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 3 of 10 residents (Resident #17, Resident #52, and Resident #190) reviewed for rights. The facility failed to ensure CNA A and Activity Assistant knocked on Resident #17, Resident #52, and Resident #190's doors when going into the residents' rooms. This failure could place residents at risk of feeling like their privacy was being invaded or the facility was not their home. Findings included: Review of Resident #17's Face Sheet dated 05/29/2025 reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #17's diagnoses included respiratory failure, need for assistance with personal care, unsteadiness on feet, weakness, reduced mobility, infection of the skin, type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia (high blood sugar),…
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 · E2025-05-29 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biological were stored under proper temperature for 1of 2 Medication Rooms (Medication room [ROOM NUMBER]) reviewed for medication storage. The facility failed to ensure the correct temperature for the storage of refrigerated medications for 9 days in Medication room [ROOM NUMBER]. This failure could place residents receiving medication at risk for lack of drug efficacy. Findings included: During an observation and record review of the Refrigerator Temperature Log for the month of May 2025 in Station 2, Medication room [ROOM NUMBER] on 05/28/2025 at 2:00PM temperature readings were below 36 degrees Fahrenheit for 18 of 27 days were recorded. The out-of-range temperatures read from 30 degrees Fahrenheit to 34 degrees Fahrenheit. During an interview with the DON on 05/29/2025 at 9:10AM the DON stated it was the night nurses' responsibility to check the temperatures of the refrigerators and document them on the log. The DON…
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 before2025-05-29 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards reviewed for food service safety in the reviewed 1 of 1 kitchen. The facility failed to ensure food safety by not consistently monitoring, discarding expired food, maintaining unsanitary kitchen equipment, and storage areas. These failures can place residents at risk for foodborne illness. Findings included: Observation in the kitchen on 5/27/2025 at 8:35 AM of the coolers reflected the following: - Sausage was in a sealed bag but was undated. - Turkey Lunch meat sealed in a bag was dated 5-16-2025 with no discard date. - Smoked ham lunch meat in a bag that was opened. - Cheese in a sealed bag that was not dated. - Cabbage were in a sealed bag that was not dated. - Half of an avocado was in a sealed bag that was not dated. - Pico in a plastic container had a use-by date of 5-15-2025. - The drink container with a red lid had no label or date. - Butter was opened that was not sealed. Observation on 5/27/2025 at 8:48 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 · D2025-05-29 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene for 1 (Resident #136) of 3 residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to provide Resident # 136 with adequate showers/baths. Resident # 136 received three (3) showers/baths within a 2-week timeframe of May 2025. This failure could place residents who required assistance for bathing at risk of not receiving care and services to meet their needs. Findings included: Review of Resident #136's face sheet dated 05/29/25 reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including acute diastolic (congestive) heart failure (a stiff left ventricle, which prevents the heart from relaxing between beats.), hypothyroidism unspecified (a condition in which the production of thyroid hormone by the thyroid gland is diminished), permanent atrial fibrillation (a long-term condition where the heartbeat does not return back to a normal…
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 · D2025-05-29 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents requiring respiratory care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #7). The facility failed to ensure Resident #7's oxygen mask tubing was changed out and dated on 04/20/25. This failure could place residents who require respiratory care at risk for respiratory infections and exacerbation of respiratory disease. Findings Included: Record review of Resident #7's 5/29/2025 face sheet indicated he was an [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses hypertensive heart disease without heart failure (a long-term condition that develops over many years in people who have high blood pressure. It's a group of medical problems ? like heart failure and conduction arrhythmias ? that can happen when your high blood pressure (hypertension) is unmanaged), Alzheimer's disease with late onset (a common…
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 before2025-05-29 · 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 3 of 10 residents (Resident #16, Resident #38, and Resident #67) reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure CNA A conducted hand hygiene when passing resident lunch trays to Resident #16, Resident #38, and Resident #67. These failures could place residents at risk of transmission of disease and infection. Findings include: Record review of Resident #16's face sheet dated 05/29/2025, reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #16 had diagnoses which included: polyneuropathy (damage affecting the nerves roughly the same area on both sides of the body), hypertension (high blood pressure), difficulty in walking, unsteadiness on feet, weakness, need 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 · Ecited before2024-04-27 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in that one of one ice machine in the kitchen had black mold built up. The facility failed to clean the ice machine properly resulting in the presence of black mold build up in the ice machine on 04/23/2024 and 04/24/2024. These failures could place all residents and staff that get ice from the kitchen at risk of serious complications from contaminated ice. Findings included: Observation of the kitchen ice machine on 04/23/2024 at 8:51am revealed black mold in the area of the left and right walls of the ice holding area as well as the location where produced ice releases into the ice machine. Observation of the kitchen ice machine on 04/24/2024 at 7:46am revealed that the ice machine had not been cleaned and the same mold was present as observed on 04/23/2024. An interview with DA NN on 04/24/2024 at 3:11pm revealed he had not been trained on how to clean the ice machine. He stated he just started 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 before2024-04-27 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
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 treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 3 of 15 (Resident #25, Resident #37, and Resident #42) residents in 1 of 1 dining room. The facility failed to promote Resident #25's dignity while dining on 04/23/2024 when staff did not serve his lunch tray for eight minutes after his tablemate was served. The facility failed to promote Resident #37's dignity while dining on 04/23/2024 when staff did not serve her diner tray for ten minutes after her tablemate was served. The facility failed to promote Resident #42's dignity while dining on 04/24/2024 when staff did not serve her lunch tray for sixteen minutes after her tablemate was served. This failure could affect all residents who were eat in the dining room, by contributing to poor self-esteem, and unmet needs. Findings included: Record review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-27 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of 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 electronically submit discharge MDS information to the QIES ASAP system within 14 days for 1 (Resident #72) of 1 resident reviewed for Resident Assessment. The facility failed to upload an MDS discharge assessment within 14 days of Resident #72 discharging from the facility on 11/17/2023. This failure could cause inaccurate resident health data that could lead to harm. Findings included: Review of electronic health record on 04/26/2024 for Resident #72 reflected a discharge MDS assessment had not been uploaded. Resident #72 was discharged to an assisted living facility on 11/17/23. Review of the undated face sheet for Resident #72 reflected an [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy (A medical term used to describe a disease that affects brain structure or function. It causes altered mental state and confusion), rheumatoid arthritis (an autoimmune disease, which means that the immune…
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 · D2024-04-27 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to refer all PASARR level II residents and all residents with newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition for PASARR level II resident review upon a significant change in status assessment for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #45) assessments reviewed for PASARR evaluations. The facility failed to refer Resident #45 to the appropriate, State-designated authority when she had a positive PASARR level I on 06/30/2023 from the referring facility, which was signed on 07/17/2023 for a primary diagnosis of bipolar disorder and schizoaffective disorder. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving necessary PASARR mental health services, causing a possible decline in mental health. Findings included: Review of Resident #45's face sheet dated 04/25/2024 reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses atherosclerotic heart disease (A condition where 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 · D2024-04-27 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan consistent with residents' rights and include the services to be furnished for one (Resident #73) of four residents care plan reviewed for Hospice. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #73's care plan reflected that they were under Hospice Care, which was ordered on 10/12/2023. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their medical, physical, and psychosocial needs meet. Findings included: Review of Resident #73's Face Sheet dated 04/26/2024 reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnosis: Chronic Pulmonary Edema (condition in which too much fluid accumulates in the lungs, interfering with a person's ability to breathe normally), and Acute Chronic Combined Systolic and Diastolic Congestive Heart Failure (serious condition in which the heart does not pump blood as efficiently as it should), and Chronic Kidney Disease (condition in which the kidneys…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-21 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents' had the right to personal privacy which included accommodations, medical treatment, written and telephone communications, personal care, visits, and meeting or family and resident groups for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for privacy. The facility failed to ensure RN A and CNA B provided privacy to Resident #1 by closing the door and privacy curtain during wound care and peri care. This failure could place residents at risk of having their bodies exposed to the public, resulting in low self-esteem and a diminished quality of life. The findings include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 11/21/23, reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (Difficulty to breath due to lung diseases), Asthma, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension (high Blood pressure), Urinary Incontinence, Alzheimer's Disease,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-21 · 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 1 of 2 residents (Residents #1) reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure RN A sanitized the scissors before and after using it to cut open the bandage over the wound on Resident #1's leg. 2. The facility failed to ensure CNA B changed her soiled gloves before handling clean peri care items during peri care for Resident #1. These failures could place residents at risk of transmission of disease and infection. The findings include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 11/21/23, reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (Difficulty to breath due to lung diseases), Asthma, Type 2…
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
$15,757 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $15,757 — penalty dated 2024-04-27
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BURMONT, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | 99% | since 04/01/2008 |
| GREEN, AVAL-NA'REE | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/23/2025 |
| DANIEL, PAMELA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 02/13/2014 |
| HOLLER, RYAN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/23/2025 |
| ARNOLD, JASON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/23/2025 |
| MONTGOMERY, MITCHELL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/23/2025 |
| MONTGOMERY, RAYMOND | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/23/2025 |
| OAK MANAGEMENT | Organization | GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 04/01/2008 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 8 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 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
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 676196. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-29, 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.