14100 Karissa Court, Houston, TX 77049 · Harris County · (713) 340-5200
130 certified beds, about 86 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2014
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 676362 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 26, 2025, inspectors cited 2 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 20 health citations since February 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $48,802 in the last three years; the largest was $39,975, and the latest is dated May 3, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.32 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.25 of those hours.
50.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Fundamental Healthcare, an affiliated group of 66 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 20 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices for 1 of 4 hallways (Hallway 100) reviewed for supervision. The facility failed to ensure the exit door located at 100 hall was locked and secured on 04/15/2026. The failure resulted in the exit door located at the end of 100 hall observed to be unlocked/unsecured, allowing unrestricted resident access.
Inspectors wroteBased on, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents transfer or discharge is documented in the resident's medical record and appropriate information is communicated to the receiving health care institution or provider. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services to prevent complications for 1 (Resident #58) of 2 resident reviewed for gastrostomy tubes (a surgically implanted tube into the stomach to provide delivery of nutrition). CNA-A paused the tube feeding pump, instead of informing the nurse immediately to turn off the pump for Resident #58, prior to lowering the head of bed (HOB). This failure could place residents with g-tubes at risk of complications such as aspiration, incorrect settings on the pump and delay in receiving feedings as physician ordered.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly for 2 of 2 dumpsters in that: The facility failed to ensure the dumpster lids were closed on 2 of 2 dumpsters and the area surrounding the dumpsters were free of garbage and debris. These failures could affect residents who resided in the facility and the public by placing them at risk of exposure to germs, disease, and an environment which could attract pests and rodents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for pharmacy services. MA K attempted to administer Resident #23's Hydrochlorothiazide (used to treat high blood pressure and fluid retention) to Resident #1 instead of Hydralazine (used to lower blood pressure and improve blood flow) as ordered by the MD. This failure could place residents at risk of medication errors resulting in exacerbation or deterioration in health conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 (CR #1) of 6 residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure CR #1, who was cognitively impaired received adequate supervision when the facility sent her to the doctor's office unsupervised. CR #1 left the doctor's office and was found outside of the building next to a major freeway feeder road by the doctor's office manager. On 5/16/24 at 4:13 p.m. an immediate jeopardy (IJ) was identified. While the IJ was removed on 5/17/24 at 3:31 p.m., the facility remained out of compliance at a severity level of no actual harm with potential for immediate jeopardy and a scope of isolated due to the facility continuing to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of their plan of removal. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse and neglect were reported immediately but not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation did not involve abuse and did not result in serious bodily injury to the State Survey Agency for 1 of 1 incident reviewed for reporting. The facility failed to report to the State Survey Agency when Resident #1 was known to have been missing for approximately 1 hour after leaving the hospital where she went for a doctor's appointment. This failure could have affected residents by resulting in a delay of identification of abuse or neglect and lack of timely follow-up on recommended interventions to prevent harm, or impairment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for two of eighteen residents (Resident #27 and Resident #41) reviewed for safe, clean, homelike environment. -The facility failed to clean enteral feeding pumps and poles, which were dirty on 4/30/2024, 5/1/2024, and 5/2/2024 for Resident #27 and #41. -The facility failed to ensure the rooms were homelike and did not have peeling paint and well-maintained bedside tables on 4/30/2024, 5/1/2024, and 5/2/2024 for Resident #27 and Resident #41. This failure could affect the residents and place them at risk of an unsafe and an environment that was not homelike.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were reviewed and revised by the Interdisciplinary Team after each assessment for 4 (Resident #29, Resident #40, Resident #57, and Resident #41) out of 9 residents reviewed for care plan accuracy. -The facility failed to ensure Resident #29's most recent fall was care planned. -The facility failed to ensure Resident #40's hospice was care planned, along with her UTI/antibiotic. -The facility failed to ensure Resident #57's diet was updated on her care plan. -The facility failed to ensure Resident #41's PEG tube feeding was updated on her care plan. These failures could place residents at risk for their medical, physical, and psychosocial needs not being met.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to refer all residents with newly evident or possible serious mental disorders, intellectual disabilities, or a related conditions for level II resident review upon a significant change in status assessment for two of eighteen residents (Resident #1 and Resident #72) reviewed for PASARR evaluations. -The facility failed to refer Resident #1 to the appropriate, State-designated authority when she was diagnosed with MDD, intermittent explosive disorder, and psychotic disorder with delusions. -The facility failed to refer Resident #72 to the appropriate, State-designated authority when she was diagnosed with major depression and schizoaffective disorder. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving necessary PASARR mental health services, causing a possible decline in mental health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 (Resident #64) of 9 residents viewed for infection control. -LVN D did not wear appropriate PPE when administering Resident #64's PEG (tube into stomach for nutrition) tube medications, when he was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions. This failure could place residents and staff at risk for cross-contamination, spread of infection and could potentially affect all others in the building.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to allow adequate equipment for residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relays the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area for 36 Resident rooms (102, 104, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 123, 125, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 213, 215, 217, 218, 219, 303, 309, 311, 313, 314, 315, 317 and 319) out of 37 resident rooms reviewed for environment. The facility failed to ensure all portions of the call system were functioning after loss of power by verifying that each resident room call lights were functioning effectively after repairs were made and verifying monthly thereafter. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals and preferences for 4 of 12 residents (Residents #24, #25, #35 and #46) reviewed for respiratory care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #24's nasal cannula tubing was dated and prefilled humidifier was dated. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #25's nasal cannula tubing was changed according to physician orders and the prefilled humidifier was dated. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #35's oxygen nasal cannula was changed according to physician orders. 4. The facility failed to ensure Resident #46's nebulizer face mask was bagged, labeled and tubing was changed according to physician orders. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the residents status for 1 of 16 residents (Resident #378) reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility failed to accurately assess Resident #378 for Central Venous Catheter dressing changes and capture dressing on the admission MDS. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving the appropriate care and services to maintain the highest level of well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that met professional standards of quality care for 2 of 16 residents (Residents #76 and #378) reviewed for baseline care plans. 1. The facility failed to develop a baseline care plan or comprehensive care plan to address person-centered care for Resident #76. 2. The facility failed to develop a baseline care plan with interventions and goals for Resident #378's Central [NAME] Catheter (CVC) care. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving care and services to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment and failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan described services to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 16 residents (Resident #378) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #378's comprehensive person-centered care plan addressed the resident's risk, interventions or goals for dressing and care of a central line. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving appropriate treatment and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident received care consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent pressure ulcers and did not develop pressure ulcers unless the individual's clinical condition demonstrated it was unavoidable and residents with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #38) reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility failed to ensure Resident #38 received wound care treatments to prevent the development of or worsening of pressure ulcers. This failure could place residents at risk for improper wound management, the development of new pressure ulcers and deterioration in existing pressure ulcers/injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure parenteral fluids were administered consistent with professional standards of practice and in accordance with physician orders, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for one of one resident (Resident #378) reviewed for parenteral IV fluids. The facility failed to ensure the dressing covering for Resident #378's central venous (CVC) site to the right chest was changed after the resident admitted from the hospital on [DATE]. Resident #378's dressing was undated and had not been changed for 25 days and failed to apply an end cap, to prevent contamination to the intravenous tubing line when not in use. This failure could place residents at risk of the intravenous site becoming infected and the line becoming unusable.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure drugs and biological's used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and included the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable for 1 of 3 medication carts (nurse cart 200 hall) reviewed for labeling and storage. The facility failed to remove expired medication and expired glucose control solution from the nurse medication cart on hall 200. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for receiving outdated medications and improper glucose monitoring and could result in residents not receiving the intended therapeutic effects of their medications causing a health decline.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility was free of pests and rodents for 1 of 4 hallways (hall 100) reviewed for environment and pests. The facility failed to ensure ants were kept out of the room of Resident #4. This failure could place residents at risk for ant bites and injury due to an ineffective pest control program at the facility.
5 fire safety citations on file: 2 on June 26, 2025, 2 on May 3, 2024, 1 on February 1, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 3, 2024 | Fine | $8,827 |
| November 14, 2023 | Fine | $39,975 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Texas | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.32 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.25 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.06 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.12 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.95 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 50.0% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 42.9% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.96 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.42 on weekdays and 3.06 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.27 in April to June 2025 to 3.32 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.32 | 0.25 | 3.42 | 3.06 | 1.4% | 0 of 90 | 86 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.32 | 0.34 | 3.42 | 3.06 | 3.4% | 0 of 92 | 82 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.30 | 0.31 | 3.39 | 3.06 | 2.2% | 0 of 92 | 85 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.27 | 0.27 | 3.38 | 3.01 | 2.1% | 0 of 91 | 90 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Texas, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.33 | 0.40 | 3.50 | 2.93 | 2.2% | 0.7% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texas, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.03 | $16.97 to $20.71 | 88,680 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.92 | $27.46 to $32.89 | 57,560 |
| Registered nurses | $46.14 | $38.06 to $50.53 | 271,380 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Texas | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.3 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.4 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.6 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.5 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.8 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Bridgecrest Rehabilitation Suites's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (48.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
48.6% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Texas: 116 better, 50 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 58 eligible stays.
10.4% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Texas: 0 better, 9 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 59 eligible stays.
6.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Texas: 4 better, 11 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 39 eligible stays.
69.2% this home
Median of homes: Texas57.3% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 26 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Texas0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 44 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Texas1.3% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 44 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Texas98.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 15 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: LIBERTY COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO 1. CMS links this home to Fundamental Healthcare, a group of 66 nursing homes averaging 2.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liberty County Hospital District No 1 | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 04/01/2017 |
| Stratton, Charles | Corporate director | Individual | 03/31/2017 | |
| Karissa Health Care LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2017 | |
| Bavare, Arusha | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Dupree, Jeannie | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/21/2021 | |
| Forman, Murray | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 11/26/2025 | |
| Fundamental Administrative Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2017 | |
| Fundamental Clinical and Operational Services, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2017 | |
| Bavare, Arusha | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Dupree, Jeannie | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/21/2021 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Texas. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.