No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Yorktown Nursing and Rehabilitation Center

670 West 4th Street, Yorktown, TX 78164 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 82 certified beds · (361) 564-2275 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (361) 564-2275 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
1 actual-harm citation CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$8,018 in federal fines
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
Worth asking about
  • inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
  • the CMS record shows $8,018 in federal fines (most recent 2024-09-07)
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)

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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 1 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
2500 N Esplanade St · (361) 275-2381 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
113 E Main St · (361) 564-2216 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
3628 Franklin Avenue
Park
141 S Riedel St · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5

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.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased26.9%15.8%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight1.8%3.0%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.3%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%0.8%2.0%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms6.9%2.4%6.5%typical
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.6%3.3%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened26.3%14.0%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication15.8%18.0%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%98.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers4.9%3.8%4.7%typical
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control19.8%13.4%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table14.1%9.6%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication7.5%1.5%1.4%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.142.171.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.462.061.80better

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.

53.1% 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 26 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

53.1%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
0.33U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.14hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.18hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 55% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF53.1%CMS range 39.0–64.851.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.8%CMS range 6.6–15.910.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identifiednot 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 next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot 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 dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF staynot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsenednot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalizationnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.771.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.40
RN hours/ resident / day
1.61
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.37
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.38
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.39
RN hoursweekends
Total nursing turnover
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 82 beds and averages 33.0 residents a day — about 40% occupied, or roughly 49 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.38 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.40 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.37 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 2.90 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.57 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.40 to 0.39 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

1 administrator has left in the past year.

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

7
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-02-20)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2024-11-21)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Actual harm · Gcited before2024-09-07 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY . Based on interviews, observation, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received 2-person assistance when CNA A transferred the resident from the wheelchair to the bed independently with a mechanical lift with the wrong sized sling. This failure could place residents at risk of injuries, falls, and a decline in quality of life. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The noncompliance began on 08/25/2024 and ended on 08/27/2024. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. The findings included: Record review of Resident #1's Transfer/Discharge Report (face sheet) dated 09/06/2024 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and Family Member F was the Responsible Party. Record review of Resident #1's Physician History & Physical, dated 05/27/2024 revealed diagnoses of osteoporosis…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · E2026-02-20 · tag F0641 — pattern
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for 3 of 16 residents (Residents #6, #28 and #34) reviewed for resident assessments. 1.The Facility failed to ensure Resident #6's active diagnosis of depression and her number of falls between assessments was accurately reflected on her quarterly MDS assessment, dated 01/12/2026. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #28's oxygen use was accurately reflected on her Significant Change MDS assessment, dated 01/16/2026. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #34's active diagnosis of dysphagia was accurately reflected on his quarterly MDS assessment, dated 12/29/2025 These deficient practices could place residents at risk of missed or inaccurate care. The findings include: Record review of Resident #6's electronic face sheet dated 02/17/2026 reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included: pressure ulcer of sacral…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2026-02-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide 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 observations, interviews and record reviews, 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 disease and infections for 2 of 7 residents (Residents #6 and#10) reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure CNA B took off her soiled gloves, sanitized her hands, and put on clean gloves prior to placing a clean brief on Resident #6 during catheter care. 2.The facility failed to ensure the ADON took off and replaced her gown after leaving the room to get more gloves when she performed wound care for Resident #6 who was on EBP. 3. The facility to ensure Resident #10 was on EBP by not having PPE outside his door and a sign on his door when he had a diabetic ulcer which required a dressing. These deficient practices could place residents at risk of cross contamination and infections.The findings included: 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-02-20 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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 observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident with pressure ulcers receives necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing. for 1 resident (Resident #10) of 2 residents observed for wound care. The facility failed to ensure the ADON followed physician orders when she performed Resident #10's diabetic ulcer (slow-healing open sore or wound, most commonly on the feet, that occurs as a complication of diabetes due to nerve damage and poor blood circulation) treatment. This deficient practice could result in a lack or delay in wound healing.The findings included: Record review of Resident #10's electronic face sheet dated 02/20/2026 reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included: unspecified dementia (syndrome characterized by a decline in cognitive function, affecting memory, thinking, behavior, and 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible; for 1 (room [ROOM NUMBER]) of 1 room on hallway with 6 residents residing on hallway reviewed for environment, in that:The facility failed to secure room [ROOM NUMBER] that was being used as storage with 2 unlocked housekeeping carts were not locked that contained potentially unsafe cleaning chemicals.This deficient practice could result in residents coming in contact with potentially unsafe cleaning chemicals.The findings included: Observation on 02/17/2026 at 11:20 a.m. revealed room [ROOM NUMBER] with no lock to the door and it was being used as storage for housekeeping floor cleaning machines along with 2 housekeeping carts in the room. The housekeeping carts had refills for the antibacterial hand foam sitting on the bottom of the carts and were not locked. Housekeeping cart #1 and cart #2 each had a 2-liter antibacterial hand foam bottle with…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-02-20 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide 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 reviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, including tracheostomy care and tracheal suctioning is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents goals and preferences for 2 (Residents #28 and #36) of 4 residents reviewed for oxygen therapy. The facility failed to ensure oxygen therapy was delivered at the prescribed rate for Resident #28. 2. The facility failed to ensure the oxygen concentrator that delivered oxygen to Resident #36 had a clean filter. These deficient practices could place residents at risk of respiratory distress.The findings included: 2. Record review of Resident #36's electronic face sheet dated 02/18/2026 reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included: heart failure (chronic condition where the heart muscle is unable to pump enough blood to meet the body's needs for blood and…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-20 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
    Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 1 medication cart (Station II Medication Cart) reviewed.The facility failed to remove an expired tube of Medi-honey (wound gel, offers protection against invading bacteria, is effective against a wide variety of bacteria, cleans the wound, rapidly lifting dead tissue, reduces wound odor and provides a moist environment for healing) with an expiration date, of 07/01/2025 from Station II's II's medication cart.This deficient practice could result in decreased effectiveness of medications.The findings were: Observation on 02/18/2026 at 12:37 PM of Station II medication cart with LVN C revealed a small tube of Medi-honey with an expiration date of 07/01/2025. During an interview on 02/19/2026 at 12:40 pm, LVN C stated the Medi-honey was house stock and used for residents. During an interview on 02/19/2026 at…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-02-20 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
    Safeguard 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 observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, medical records were maintained on each resident that were complete, accurate, readily accessible and systematically organized for 2 (Residents #28 and #36) of 19 residents reviewed for clinical records. The facility failed to ensure Resident #28's MAR/TAR reflected her order for receiving oxygen at 2 LPM via nasal cannula for nurses to monitor for proper setting. 2. The facility failed to ensure LVN A accurately documented in Resident #36's TAR that his oxygen concentrator filter was not cleaned when she initialed that it was. These deficient practices could result in inaccurate clinical records and decreased continuity of care.The findings included: 2. Record review of Resident #36's electronic face sheet dated 02/18/2026 reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included: heart failure (chronic condition where the heart…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-04-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen, in that: 1. The facility ice machine that provided ice for resident beverages at meals had visible rust on the outside and inside of the machine and contained large sections of yellow and brown ice. This failure could place residents who drink beverages with ice from the kitchen at risk for becoming sick from contaminated ice. The findings were: During an observation, 04/22/2025 at 11:02 a.m., the ice machine utilized by the kitchen for resident beverages was observed to have large sections of yellow and brown colored ice inside of the machine and rust stains on the inside and outside walled surfaces of the ice machine. During an interview with the Dietary Cook, 04/22/2025 at 11:42 a.m., the Dietary [NAME] stated the facility only had one ice maker and the facility residents were served ice from the ice maker for all beverages at meals. The Dietary [NAME] stated maintenance was…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the kitchen. The facility failed to ensure dietary staff used proper hand hygiene during meal preparation. This failure could place residents who received meals and/or snacks from the kitchen at risk for food borne illness. The findings included: Observation on 11/20/2024 at 11:20 a.m. revealed the DM assisting with the meal tray preparation. The DM had washed her hands and put on gloves for cutting the bread, after cutting the bread she assisted with taking plates from the cook and placed them on trays. The cook asked for diet tickets on the other side of the DM in which the DM reached and grabbed tickets handed them to the cook, and continued to assist with putting plates on trays and placing bread on plates using tongs. The DM then proceeded to reach in a bread bag, grabbed a large stack of bread, placed her gloved hand on the bread, cut the bread in half and continued to place bread on trays.…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-21 · tag F0645 — isolated
    PASARR 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 interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure all Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) level 1 residents with mental illness were provided with a PASRR level 2 evaluation for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #5), reviewed for resident assessment. Resident #5's PASRR level 1 screening form did not indicate mental illness and the resident did not have a PASRR level II evaluation. This could place residents at risk of not receiving necessary specialized services to meet their individual needs. The findings were: Record review of Resident #5's face sheet dated 11/20/24 revealed the resident was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included major depressive disorder recurrent severe with psychotic symptoms (mental health disorder characterized by persistently depressed mood or loss of interest in activities, causing significant impairment in daily life with hallucinations, delusions, disorganized thoughts, speech, and actions), psychotic disorder…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-21 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolated
    Ensure 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 observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who was fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #23) reviewed for quality of care. Resident #23's tube feeding was not labeled with the required information. This failure could place residents at risk of decreased continuity of care, errors in tube feeding, and nutritional deficits. The findings were: Record review of Resident #23's face sheet dated 11/21/24 revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included anoxic brain damage (damaged caused by a complete lack of oxygen to the brain), dysphagia following cerebral infarction (difficulty swallowing following a stroke that disrupted blood flow to the brain due to problems with the blood vessels that supply it), and aphasia (aphasia is a language disorder that affects your ability to speak and…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-21 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
    Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #18) reviewed for pharmacy services. Resident #18's Tramadol (narcotic) medication was left unsupervised in the top drawer of the medication cart in a paper pill cup after it was popped out of the medication card. This could put residents at risk of pain, medication errors, and drug diversion. The findings were: Record review of Resident #18's face sheet dated 11/21/24 revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included unspecified dementia unspecified severity with agitation (general term for loss of memory, language, problem-solving, and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life and include agitation), muscle…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-29 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolated
    Make sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public for 1 of 1 dining rooms reviewed, in that: A supply cabinet located in the facility dining room was unlocked and contained potentially dangerous materials. This deficient practice could place residents, staff, and the public at risk of exposure to potentially dangerous materials. The findings were: Observation on 09/26/2023 at 12:58 p.m. revealed a supply cabinet located in the facility dining room was closed but unlocked, and contained three containers of cleaning wipes labeled, Warning, Keep Out of Reach of Children, and six cans of shaving cream labeled, Warning, Keep Out of Reach of Children. During an interview with Housekeeper A on 09/26/2023 at 1:01 p.m., Housekeeper A confirmed a supply cabinet located in the facility dining room was closed but unlocked, and contained three containers of cleaning wipes labeled, Warning, Keep Out of Reach of Children and six cans of shaving cream labeled, Warning,…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$8,018 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $8,018 — penalty dated 2024-09-07

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE — 44 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 52.6+0.4 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.5+1.5 vs chain
Staffing 1 of 53.0-2.0 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 53.5+0.5 vs chain
The other 43 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, per CMS)
1 of 5Diversicare Of BessemerBessemer, AL 1 of 5Diversicare Of HaysvilleHaysville, KS 1 of 5Diversicare Of MeridianMeridian, MS 1 of 5Diversicare Of Oak RidgeOak Ridge, TN 1 of 5Diversicare Of OxfordOxford, AL 1 of 5Diversicare Of RipleyRipley, MS 1 of 5Diversicare Of SedgwickSedgwick, KS 1 of 5Diversicare Of SouthavenSouthaven, MS 1 of 5Lampasas Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterLampasas, TX 1 of 5Windsor HouseHuntsville, AL 2 of 5Diversicare Of AmoryAmory, MS 2 of 5Diversicare Of ArabArab, AL 2 of 5Diversicare Of BatesvilleBatesville, MS 2 of 5Diversicare Of BoazBoaz, AL 2 of 5Diversicare Of BrookhavenBrookhaven, MS 2 of 5Diversicare Of ChanuteChanute, KS 2 of 5Diversicare Of Council GroveCouncil Grove, KS 2 of 5Diversicare Of EuporaEupora, MS 2 of 5Diversicare Of FoleyFoley, AL 2 of 5Diversicare Of MontgomeryMontgomery, AL 2 of 5Diversicare Of Moss PointMoss Point, MS 2 of 5Diversicare Of Pell CityPell City, AL 2 of 5Diversicare Of TupeloTupelo, MS 2 of 5St Martin's In The PinesIrondale, AL 3 of 5Chisolm Trail Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterLockhart, TX 3 of 5Diversicare Of Copper BasinCopperhill, TN 3 of 5Diversicare Of LulingLuling, TX 3 of 5Diversicare Of OneontaOneonta, AL 3 of 5Diversicare Of QuitmanQuitman, MS 3 of 5Diversicare Of RiverchaseBirmingham, AL 3 of 5Diversicare Of ShelbyShelby, MS 3 of 5Park PlaceSelma, AL 4 of 5Baron House Of HueytownHueytown, AL 4 of 5Diversicare Of Big SpringsHuntsville, AL 4 of 5Diversicare Of HutchinsonHutchinson, KS 4 of 5Diversicare Of LanettLanett, AL 4 of 5Diversicare Of WinfieldWinfield, AL 4 of 5Hartford Health CareHartford, AL 5 of 5Diversicare Of GreensboroGreensboro, AL 5 of 5Diversicare Of LarnedLarned, KS

Showing 40 of 43; lowest-rated first.

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 / managerTypeRoleSince
CHAVEZ, MICHAELIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 04/01/2019
FRELS, JOHNIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 04/01/2019
PAPACEK, CHARLESIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 10/01/1997
SHEPPARD, CYNTHIAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 06/25/2013
STAKES, HARRYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 02/01/2016
WHEELER, RICHARDIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 07/27/2010
PRITCHETT, GREGORYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 08/29/1994
WEISHAAR, MATTHEWIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 12/01/2003

CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

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.

$2.9M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-16.2%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$539K
Related-party expense16% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 45%Medicare 6%Other / private 50%

This home reported $539K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$277per resident / day
operating cost
$8,416per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$238per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in TX

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Texas
$5,627/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$7,604/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,666/mo
Assisted living

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 675071. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-20, 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.

What to do next