1350 Main St., Frisco, TX 75034 · Collin County · (214) 705-9108
180 certified beds, about 156 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2007
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 676145 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 26, 2026, inspectors cited 5 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 24 health citations since September 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $24,587 in the last three years; the largest was $13,397, and the latest is dated January 16, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.38 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.50 of those hours.
CMS links it to Cantex Continuing Care, an affiliated group of 37 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 24 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1, who sustained a mild nasal fracture from a fall on 07/11/26, followed up with an ENT in 7 days per hospital discharge orders. The resident was discharged from the hospital on [DATE] and the appointment was not made until 07/22/26. This failure could place residents at risk for worsening of condition which could lead to serious harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident had the right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to Housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #14) reviewed for environmental conditions. The facility failed to ensure Resident #14's toilet seat was in good condition and was not broken. This failure could place residents at risk for injury and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, 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 timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 31 residents (Resident #24) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop a care plan with measurable objectives and timeframes to address Resident #39's colostomy (an opening in the abdominal wall that allows waste to pass into a removeable pouch). This failure could place residents at risk of receiving inadequate interventions not individualized to their care needs.
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 resident's goals and preferences for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #137) reviewed for intravenous medication. The facility failed to ensure Resident #137's intravenous medication bag and tubing were labeled with the date, time, and initials. These failures could place residents at risk for medication error, delay in medication administration, infections and cross-contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the drugs and biologicals used in the facility must be labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable) to meet the needs of each resident for 2 of 5 medication carts (Halls 100 medication Aide medication cart and Hall 900 nurses' medication cart) reviewed for medication storage .1. The facility failed to ensure expired medications were removed from the Hall 100 medication aide cart and Hall 900 nurses' medication cart. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the therapeutic benefit of medication or an adverse drug reaction. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the storage of all drugs and biologicals were in locked compartments under proper temperature controls, and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #19) reviewed for storage of medications. The facility failed to ensure Resident #19's Oxycodone-Acetaminophen tablet was not left on his over-bed table in his room by staff. This failure could affect residents by placing residents at risk of consuming unsafe medications left at bedside unattended.
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 timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing and mental and psychological needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for one of five residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care planning.1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's care plan had a person-centered approach to address her evolving medical and dietary needs.2. The facility failed develop a care plan to address a hospitalization for pneumonia and a return the facility with continued textured diet orders, aspiration precautions and additional antibiotic treatment. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's comprehensive care plan addressed their oral care and condition including the resident's risk and/or underlying causes (to the extent possible) of the resident's dental/oral condition and the impact upon the resident's function, mood, and cognition. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving inadequate interventions not individualized to their mental health and dental health care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide or obtain from an outside source, routine and 24-hour emergency dental services to meet the needs of 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for dental needs. The facility failed to obtain dental services for Resident #1, who had a broken tooth and oversized dentures. This failure could place the residents at risk for not having their dental needs met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections to the extent possible for one (Resident #75) of four residents reviewed for indwelling urinary catheters. The facility failed to provide physician ordered catheter care to Resident #75 and failed to notify Resident #75's NP when she experience pain and discomfort from her urinary catheter. These failures led to Resident # 75 experiencing increased pain and discomfort from her catheter and placed Resident # 75 at risk for urethral tears, dislodging of the catheter, and urinary tract infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, 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 kitchens reviewed for kitchen sanitation. The facility failed to ensure food was properly stored in the facility's kitchen. These failures could place residents at risk for food-borne illness. Findings Included: Observation of the facility's refrigerator on 01/14/25 beginning at 9:07 AM revealed: - 1 open bin of raw chicken open and exposed to air; and - 1 open bag of ham. Observation of a prep table located in the open area of the facility's kitchen on 01/14/25 beginning at 9:18 AM revealed: -1 box of bananas dated 01/06/25 with black spots and a bug; and - 1 box of bananas dated 01/08/25 with fuzzy white spots. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased 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 #91), reviewed for resident assessment. Resident #91's PASRR level 1 screening form did not reflect mental illness and the resident did not have a PASRR level II evaluation when Resident #91 had a diagnosis of schizophrenia. This could place residents at risk of not receiving necessary specialized services to meet their individual needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that included instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care for the resident that met professional standards of care within 48 hours of the resident's admission for two (Resident #118 and Resident #141) of 7 residents reviewed for baseline care plans. The facility failed to complete baseline care plans for Resident #118 and Resident #141 within 48 hours of their admission. This failure could place newly admitted residents at risk of not receiving effective and person-centered care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feedings, for 1 (Resident #120) of 2 residents that were reviewed for feeding tubes. The facility failed to ensure LNV A verified G-tube (Gastrostomy tube a surgically placed tube directly into the stomach to deliver food and medicine) placement. LVN A failed to aspirate (the act of withdrawing fluid from the stomach to check G-tube placement and measure stomach content) prior to administering water flushes and medications. LVN A failed to administer G-tube water flushes by gravity (the use of gravity to move the water flushes and medications through the G-tube into the resident). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records that were complete and/or accurate for one (Residents #91) of four residents reviewed for clinical records. --Resident #91 received psychotropic medications without documented diagnoses for which the medication was prescribed. These failures placed residents at risk of not having accurate clinical records completed to indicate if a medication or treatment was administered, resulting in potential medical errors and a decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, 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 of 10 residents (Resident #75) observed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure LVN C used PPE while assessing the foley catheter on Resident #75 who was on enhanced barrier precautions. This failure could place residents at risk for cross contamination and risk of further infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for one (Resident #3) of five residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3 provided proper consent to a facility affiliated insurance company. This failure could place residents at risk for decreased dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public for 2 (Resident #1 and Resident #2) of 8 residents reviewed for environment. The facility failed to ensure the wheelchairs used by Resident #1 and Resident #2 were clean and sanitary. This failure could place residents at risk for diminished quality of life due to the lack of a well-kept environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on, observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 1 (Resident #1) of 8 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. 1. The facility failed to administer evening medications to Resident #1 when she asked to take them at a later time. 2. The facility staff failed to document the missed medication doses or notify the physician when Resident #1's medications were not administered. These failures placed residents at risk of not receiving the therapeutic benefits of their prescribed medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food safety in the facility's only kitchen. 1. The facility failed to ensure the ice machine was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner free of white crust and scale. 2. The facility failed to ensure food items and clean dishes were kept away from soiled surfaces and airborne contaminants. 3. The facility failed to ensure Styrofoam containers were stored away from the kitchen cleaning products and equipment. 4. The facility failed to ensure the microwave was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner free of dust and sticky residue. These failures could place residents, who received food from the kitchen, at risk for food contamination and food-borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly. The facility failed to ensure the trash in the dumpster corral was contained and maintained in a sanitary condition. The failure had the potential to attract rodents and create an unsafe, unsanitary exterior.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene for 1 (Resident #129) of 8 residents reviewed for personal care. The facility failed to provide personal care and skin care for Resident #129 by not grooming her hair. This failure could place residents who require staff assistance at risk of dermatitis, infections, and low self-esteem.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and records review, the facility failed to ensure personnel provided basic life support, which included CPR, to a resident requiring such emergency care subject to the resident's advance directives for one (Resident #1) of four residents reviewed for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. On [DATE], LVN A found Resident #1 unresponsive. LVN A said she a pulse was not felt, and a heartbeat was faintly heard. LVN A did not initiate CPR to Resident #1. LVN A failed to review Resident #1's Advance Directives choice, Full Code, when she discovered Resident #1 unresponsive. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on [DATE]. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 5:06 PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was developed within seven days after completion of the comprehensive assessment and reviewed and revised for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan to address Full Code advanced directives for Resident #1. This failure may adversely affect resident care or treatment and risk not receiving the appropriate care and services to maintain their highest practicable well-being.
14 fire safety citations on file: 4 on March 26, 2026, 3 on January 16, 2025, 7 on December 14, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 16, 2025 | Fine | $11,190 |
| January 16, 2025 | Payment Denial | 14 days from February 14, 2025 |
| September 27, 2023 | Fine | $13,397 |
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) | 3.38 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.50 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.83 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.92 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.96 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | not reported | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.65 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 3.61 on weekdays and 2.83 on weekends, 22% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.7% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.41 in April to June 2025 to 3.38 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 | 3.38 | 0.50 | 3.61 | 2.83 | 0.7% | 0 of 90 | 156 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.39 | 0.45 | 3.59 | 2.88 | 1.1% | 0 of 92 | 152 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.36 | 0.41 | 3.57 | 2.84 | 0.8% | 0 of 92 | 148 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.41 | 0.37 | 3.65 | 2.79 | 0.7% | 0 of 91 | 144 |
| 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 | 6.5 | 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 | 1.0 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.1 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.7 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.0 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Prairie Estates's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (53.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
53.6% 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. 162 eligible stays.
11.0% 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. 197 eligible stays.
6.3% 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. 101 eligible stays.
59.7% 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. 67 residents counted.
0.9% 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. 112 residents counted.
1.6% 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. 112 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. 12 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: DALLAS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Cantex Continuing Care, a group of 37 nursing homes averaging 3.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dallas County Hospital District | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 02/15/2015 |
| Castaneda, Edmundo | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/10/2022 | |
| Cerise, Frederick | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/24/2014 | |
| Sutton Health Care Center Ltd Co | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 02/15/2015 | |
| Pinkins, Telesia | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/05/2022 | |
| Sutton Health Care Center Ltd Co | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/04/2025 | |
| Coleman, Lakeisha | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/05/2023 | |
| Pinkins, Telesia | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/05/2022 |
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.