Park Manor Of The Woodlands
1014 Windsor Lake Boulevard, The Woodlands, TX 77384 · For profit - Corporation · 124 certified beds · (936) 273-9424 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 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 | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 8.2% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 3.0% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 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 | 0.0% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 2.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 3.1% | 3.3% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 2.2% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.8% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.8% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 8.9% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.2% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.5% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.7% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.7% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.4% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.07 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.02 | 2.06 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
51.2% 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 451 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 57.9% 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 221 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 0.67 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 91% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 25% 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 | 51.2%CMS range 45.8–55.3 | 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 | 13.7%CMS range 10.7–15.8 | 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 | 57.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 58.4% | 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 | 51.6% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 98.1% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 97.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.3% | 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 | 4.1% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.1%CMS range 5.8–10.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.98 | 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 124 beds and averages 106.7 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 17 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.93 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.46 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.36 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 3.30 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.19 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.50 to 0.35 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-11-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety reviewed for food procurement in 1 of 1 kitchen to demonstrate the prevalence of the noncompliance in that: -The facility failed to ensure 10 pounds of raw fish was stored at proper temperature. -The facility failed to ensure scoops were not stored in food bins. -The facility failed to ensure gallons of milk were not stored on a rack 4 1/2 inches off the floor. These failures could place residents at risk of food borne illnesses and diseases. Observation and interview on 9/09/25 between 8:30 am and 8:40 am with the Dietary Manager revealed the following: -10 pounds of raw fish was inappropriately being held on a pan being thawed at room temperature, evidenced by taking the temperature revealed the internal temperatures of 64 degrees Fahrenheit. -Scoops with handles submerged in the sugar bin and flour bin. -4 gallons of milk were on a rack 4 1/2 inches off the floor in the walk-in refrigerator.…
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 · E2025-11-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #75, Resident #78 and Resident #79) and 1 of 1 Kitchen (Kitchen A) reviewed for infection control. 1.The facility failed to ensure MA E used the required PPE for Resident #75, who was on enhanced barrier precautions, while checking BP on 9/23 /25. 2. The facility failed to ensure LVN K used the required PPE for Resident #78 on 9/23/25. 3. The facility failed to ensure CNA B maintained hand hygiene during incontinent/FC on 9/24/25 for Resident #79. 4. The facility failed to ensure CNA B cleansed around the buttocks for Resident #79 on 9/24/2025. These failures could place residents at risk of cross-contamination, development of infections, and food-borne illnesses and diseases.1.Record…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-21 · 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, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #79) reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to ensure CNA B cleaned Resident #79 properly during incontinent care on 9/24/25.This failure could place residents at risk for pain, infection and hospitalization.Record review of Resident #79's face sheet reflected the date of admission was 8/27/25 and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #79 had diagnoses which included history of generalized anxiety disorder, other specified depressive episodes, obesity, class 1( excess body fat0, other specified hypothyroidism, other hyperlipidemia(high lipid/fat in the blood), gastro-esophageal reflux disease without esophagitis, pneumonia due to other specified bacteria, other acute kidney failure, essential (primary) hypertension (high blood pressure),…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-21 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #79) reviewed for incontinent care. 1.The facility failed to ensure CNA B properly cleaned Resident #79's indwelling Foley catheter.2. The facility failed to ensure CNA B followed proper hand hygiene during incontinent care on 9/24/25.3. The facility failed to ensure CNA A secured Resident #79's Foley catheter. These failures could place residents at risk for pain, infection, injury, and hospitalization.Record review of Resident #79's face sheet reflected the date of admission was 8/27/25 and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #79 had diagnoses which included history of generalized anxiety disorder, other specified depressive episodes, obesity, class 1(excess body fat, other specified hypothyroidism(e03.8), other hyperlipidemia(high…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-21 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who was fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to restore, if possible, oral eating skills and prevent complications of enteral feedings including but not limited to aspiration pneumonia, diarrhea, vomiting, dehydration, metabolic abnormalities and nasal-pharyngeal ulcers for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #78) reviewed for feeding tubes. The facility staff failed to ensure LVN K verified placement of Resident #78's feeding tube prior to medication administration on 9/23/25. This failure could place residents at risk for complications such as aspiration pneumonia (occurs when food or liquid is breathed into the airway or lungs, instead of being swallowed), pneumothorax (a condition that occurs when air leaks into the space between the lungs and chest wall), perforations, empyema (one of the diseases that compromises chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), bronchopleural fistula (a sinus tract…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-21 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, medical records on each resident were maintained that were complete and accurately documented for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #144) reviewed for accurate records.-The facility failed to ensure urine output was documented on 9/14/2025 and 9/19/2025 per physician orders for Resident #144.This failure could place residents at risk of changes in condition not being detected and treated in a timely manner. Record review of Resident #144's face sheet, dated 09/25/2025, reflected a [AGE] year-old female originally admitted on [DATE] and last re-admitted on [DATE]. Her medical diagnoses included type 2 diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar), neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (damage or dysfunction in the nerves or muscles that control bladder function), rheumatoid arthritis (chronic inflammatory disorder affecting small joints in the hands and feet), and extended spectrum beta lactamase…
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 · D2024-08-08 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rate was not five percent (%) or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 16% based on 4 errors out of 25 opportunities, which involved 1 of 8 residents (Resident #99) reviewed for medication errors. -The facility failed to ensure LVN N administered the correct dose of Potassium Chloride or Ferrous sulfate liquid to Resident #99 according to Physician orders. -The facility failed to ensure LVN N did not crush and administer; Acetaminophen ER (an extended-release formulation which should not be crushed) to Resident #99 via g-tube (a way to deliver liquid nutrition through a flexible tube to your digestive system) instead of Acetaminophen as ordered by the Physician. These failures could place residents at risk of inadequate therapeutic outcomes. Findings include: Record review of Resident #99's face sheet dated 8/8/24 revealed an [AGE] year-old female readmitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-07-14 · tag F0807 — failed to offer suitable drinks — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides drinks consistent with resident needs and preferences and sufficient to maintain resident hydration.
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 observation the facility failed to ensure residents received drinks consistent with preference and sufficient to maintain hydration for 10 of 10 (confidential group) and 3 of 21 (Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident # 78) of residents reviewed for hydration. The facility did not provide hot coffee to residents during mealtimes. This failure could place residents who depend on the facility for their hydration needs at risk for thirst, dehydration, and decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review Resident #1's face sheet revealed resident admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1's was diagnosed with essential (primary) hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications, cerebral infarction, unspecified, spinal stenosis (space inside the backbone is too small placing pressure on the spinal cord and nerves), site unspecified, muscle weakness (generalized), unspecified atrial fibrillation (irregular heart beat), benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary…
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 before2023-07-14 · 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 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food procurement in 1.The facility failed to ensure that ice scoops will be cleaned and stored in a separate container that limits cross-contamination. 2.The facility failed to ensure that all cold and dry goods items will be stored 6 inches above the floor. These failures could place residents at risk of foodborne illness and disease. Findings included: 1. Observation on 7/13/23 at 8:30 AM with Dietary A revealed that the ice scoop was left in the ice bin on top of the ice. 2. Observation on 7/13/23 at 9:00 AM with the Dining Services Director revealed that dry goods and cold foods were stored 4 inches above the floor. Interview with the Dining Services Director on 7/13/23 at 9:20 AM revealed the ice scoop should not be left in the ice bin. Interview with the Dining Services Director on 7/13/23 at 9:25 AM revealed that dry goods and cold foods will be appropriately…
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 · D2023-07-14 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement person-centered care plans for each resident's services furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 21 residents (Resident #86) reviewed for the develop and implement comprehensive care plans. - The facility failed to ensure Resident #86's comprehensive care plan included the care for her schizoaffective and delusional diagnoses. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not being provided with the necessary care or services and having personalized plans developed to address their specific needs. Findings included: Record review of Resident #86's face sheet undated revealed an [AGE] year-old female who admitted into the facility on [DATE]. The resident was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder (a combination of symptoms of schizophrenia and mood disorder such as depression or bipolar disorder), delusional disorder (is a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-14 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolatedDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure garbage and refuse properly for 1 of 1 dumpster reviewed for garbage disposal. -The facility failed to ensure the dumpster lids and doors were secured. This failure could place residents at risk of infection from improperly disposed garbage. Findings include: Observation on 07-13-23 at 8:55 am, with the Dining Services Director revealed the facility's dumpster area,was not in use when it was observed to be open which was in the lot behind the dietary department had a commercial -size dumpster and the lid and door were opened. Interview on 07-13-23 at 9:00 am, with the Dining Services Director she stated the dumpster lids always must be closed to keep vermin, pests, and insects out of the dumpster and from entering the facility. Record review of the facility policy and procedure of Dispose of Garbage and Refuse dated 8/2017 read in part. All garbage and refuse will be collected and disposed of in a safe and efficient manner. 2. The Dining Services Director will ensure that: appropriate lid and door…
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.
- No harm found · C2026-02-05 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the daily staffing was posted and readily accessible for review on a daily basis at the beginning of each shift for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for required postings. The facility failed to update the daily nursing postings on 02/05/26. This failure could affect residents, by placing them at risk of not having access to information regarding daily nursing staffing in a timely manner. Findings Include: An observation on 02/05/26 at 09:08 AM revealed, the facility Daily Nursing Staff Direct Responsible for Resident Care on the top of the center nursing station facing the front door that read 02/04/26. The posting indicated that the facility had 3 shifts (6AM- 2 PM, 2 PM - 10 PM, 10 PM- 6 AM) for Nurses, 3 shifts (6AM- 2 PM, 2 PM - 10 PM, 10 PM- 6 AM) for CNA, 2 shifts (6AM- 2 PM, 2 PM - 10 PM) for CMAs, and 2 shifts (6AM- 2 PM, 2 PM - 10 PM) for RNAs. The posting indicated the facility census, number of staff types (RN, LVN, CNA, CMA and RNAs) and total hours worked for all shifts. In an observation…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to HMG HEALTHCARE — 31 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 | 4 of 5 | 3.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 1.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 30 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.1★, 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIBC BANK USA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2018 |
| FORVIS MAZARS LLP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2018 |
| ZIONS BANCORPORATION | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/01/2018 |
| STRAMECKI, ANTHONY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2018 |
| MURRELL, EDWARD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2018 |
| ROLLO, JEFFERY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2018 |
| BALSAMO, KRYSTAL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/29/2021 |
| CULP, ROLAND | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2012 |
| DASPIT, LAURENCE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2012 |
| DOHN, WILLIAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/27/2019 |
| MEGHANI, ASHRAFALI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/03/2023 |
| PICO, ANA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2012 |
| PRINCE, DEREK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2012 |
| REINARZ, CHRISTIAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/13/2024 |
| VRATIS, KACEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2018 |
| WAY, GEORGE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2018 |
| HEALTHMARK GROUP LTD | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/27/2025 |
| HM GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/27/2025 |
| HMG PARK MANOR OF THE WOODLANDS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/27/2025 |
| HUSSAIN, FEROZE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2018 |
| MATTEWAL, AMARBIR | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2018 |
| STANBRIDGE, NORMA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/29/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 33 rows in the source record cover these 22 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
6 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.
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 676273. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-21, 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.