2918 Duncanville Rd, Dallas, TX 75211 · Dallas County · (214) 467-7090
120 certified beds, about 84 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1999
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675783 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 15, 2025, inspectors cited 10 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 35 health citations since March 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $25,390 in the last three years; the largest was $16,464, and the latest is dated May 15, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.31 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.36 of those hours.
48.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
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 35 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and failed to care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for dignity. The facility failed to ensure the door or curtain was closed for Resident #1 while she was asleep in Bed A in her underwear. These failures placed the resident at risk of not having her right to a dignified existence maintained.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and comfortable environment for residents on 5 (halls 100, 200, 400, 500 and 600) of 6 halls reviewed. The facility failed to provide a comfortable environment on 12/09/25 when the surveyor observed CNA C spraying a strong scented perfume down the 200 hall. The facility failed to provide a clean and comfortable environment on 12/09/25 when the surveyor observed 2 32-gallon trash bins on the 100, 200, 400, 500 and 600 hall. The facility failed to provide a safe environment on 12/09/25 when the surveyor observed unlocked mechanical lift were observed unlocked on halls 100 and 200. The facility failed to provide a safe environment on 12/10/25 when the surveyor observed an unlocked mechanical lift and shower bed on the 100 hall and an unlocked mechanical lift on the 200 hall. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for infection control. -The facility failed on 12/09/25 to ensure infection control procedures were followed when LVN F repositioned Resident #1, who was on enhanced barrier precautions, without donning appropriate PPE. -The facility failed on 12/10/25 to ensure infection control procedures were followed when CNA A and CNA B handled soiled linen and provided perineal care to Resident #1, who was on enhanced barrier precautions, without donning appropriate PPE. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for five (Resident #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5) of fifteen residents reviewed for reasonable accommodation of needs. The facility failed to ensure the call light system in Resident #1, #2. #3, #4, and #5's rooms was in a position that was accessible to the residents on 08/12/2025. This failure could place the residents at risk of being unable to obtain assistance when needed and help in the event of an emergency.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident had the right to personal privacy and confidentiality of his or her personal and medical records for one of 8 residents (Residents #1) reviewed for confidentiality of records. The facility failed to ensure LVN A did not leave the computer tablet on top of a medication cart from disclosing Residents #1's EMAR's insulin administration on 09/05/25 from 11:10 AM to 11:13 AM; Subsequently there was not any staff around the medication cart for approximately three minutes. This failure could place residents at risk of having their medical information disclosed to residents and visitors which could cause embarrassment, frustration, and feelings of decreased privacy, which could result in a decline in health and psycho-social well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure, in accordance with State and Federal laws, all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments under proper temperature controls and permitted only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for 1 of 6 halls (Hall 500) reviewed for medication storage. The facility failed to ensure LVN A did not leave her medication cart, on the 500 hall, unattended and unlocked at the entrance of Resident #2 and #3's opened room door on 09/05/25 at 11:10 AM. This failure could place residents at risk of having their medications taken or consumed by other residents, which could cause a drug diversion, shortage of medications, change in condition which could result in a decline in health and psycho-social well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #154) reviewed for elopements. The facility failed to ensure Resident #154 did not elope from the facility's back door on 04/19/24. Resident #154 was found on the street attempting to go to the gas station across the street from the facility that was located directly off a busy highway. Resident #154 had suffered a skin tear to his arm . The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance. The IJ began on 04/19/24 and ended on 11/01/24. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could placed residents at risk of serious injury or death.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to promptly notify the physician of laboratory results in accordance with facility policy and procedures for notification for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #306) reviewed for laboratory services. The facility failed to send Resident #306's weekly labs to the infectious disease doctor while the resident resided at the facility from 11/27/24 to 12/20/24. This deficient practice placed the residents at high risk of not receiving treatment, and/or developing complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure each resident received, and the facility provided food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #80) reviewed for regular ground diet needs. The facility failed to provide Resident #80 with his regular ground foods (mechanically altered diet that was prescribed for individuals who have difficulty chewing or swallowing food) as designated on his meal ticket on 05/14/25. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for poor food intake, weight loss, and not having their nutritional needs met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events that caused the allegation involved abuse or resulted in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24-hours if the events that caused the allegation did not involve abuse and did not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (which included the State Survey Agency and Adult Protective Services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State Law through established procedures for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #154) reviewed for abuse and neglect. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to coordinate assessments with the PASRR program for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #66) reviewed for PASRR assessments. The facility did not refer Resident #66 to the appropriate state-designated mental health authority for review when he received a new diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. This failure could place residents at risk of not being evaluated and receive needed PASRR services.
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 resident rights that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment that describes the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #22) reviewed for care plan accuracy. The facility failed to develop a care plan with measurable objectives and timeframes to address Resident #22's care needs. 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 residents who are fed by enteral means, received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding, for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #45) reviewed for enteral nutrition. The facility failed to follow physician orders for Resident #45's enteral feeding tube to be flushed with 50 ml of water every 1 hour and feeding with Jevity 1.2 at 55mls/hr. This failure could place residents who had gastrostomy tube at risk for fluid deficit and over feeding.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who required dialysis received such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #98) reviewed for dialysis. The facility failed to ensure dialysis communication forms for Resident #98 were completed with the resident's dialysis treatment information on the following dates: 05/02/25, 05/05/25, and 05/09/25. This failure could place residents at risk of inadequate communication between the facility and dialysis center.
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 on one of three medication carts (500 hall) and 2 of 2(Residents #25 and #59 ) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure the 500 Hall nurses' medication cart contained accurate narcotic logs for Resident #25 and #59 on 05/14/25. These failures could place residents at risk for medication error, and drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was not five percent (5%) or greater for one of three staff (LVN Q) which resulted in a 10% medication error rate after 30 opportunities with 3 errors for one of five residents (Residents #97) reviewed for medications. LVN Q crushed all medications and mixed them all together into one cup of pudding without an order to do so for Resident #97, creating an error rate of 10%, (3 errors out of 30 opportunities). This failure could place residents at risk of physical and chemical incompatibilities leading to an altered therapeutic response.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to immediately inform his or her authority, the resident representative(s) when there was an accident involving the resident which resulted in injury and had the potential for requiring physician intervention and when a need to transfer or discharge the resident from the facility for 1 (Resident #1) of 6 residents reviewed for Change in condition. 1. LVN D failed to notify FM 1 after Resident #1 had an unwitnessed fall and complained of back pain on 04/06/25 at 2:50 am. 2. RN E failed to notify FM about Resident #1's transfer to the hospital after he fell with abnormal x-rays of his back on 04/06/25 around 3:26 pm. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the resident had the right to personal privacy and confidentiality of his or her personal and medical records for 1 (Resident #1) of 6 residents reviewed the Privacy of medical records. 1. LVN D failed to notify FM 1 after Resident #1 had an unwitnessed fall and complained of back pain on 04/06/25 at 2:50 am. The nurse notified FM 2 who was not on the face sheet. 2. RN E failed to notify FM about Resident #1's transfer to the hospital after he fell with abnormal x-rays of his back on 04/06/25 around 3:26 pm. The nurse notified FM 2 who was not on the face sheet. These failures could place residents with fall incidents or abnormal radiology reports at risk of a delay in prompt medical decisions, which could result in a decline in a resident's health and psycho-social well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights set forth, that include measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment. The comprehensive care plan must describe the services that were to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being as required for 1 (Resident #1) of 6 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's ADL care plan was completed to reveal what level a assistance he needed for dressing, toileting, bed mobility and transfers. [...]
Inspectors wrotetc Based on interviews and record reviews 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 demonstrates that they were unavoidable and once identified received services to promote wound healing for 1 (Resident #1) of 6 residents reviewed for Wound prevention. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 did not develop a sacral wound after he admitted to this facility on 03/25/25; subsequently on 03/30/25, CNA C did not provide incontinent care to Resident #1 and the nurses or treatment nurses did not provided wound care to his sacral Deep Tissue Injury. And on 03/31/25 he developed an opened sacral wound. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 did not develop a Left heel wound that was discovered on 04/09/25. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident that were complete for 1 (Resident #1) of 6 residents reviewed for Medical records. MDS L or MDS M failed to add to Resident #1's EMR profile, of him having a sacral pressure ulcer he was diagnosed with on 03/31/25. These failures could place residents at risk of not getting appropriate care if the resident's documentation were missing from their medical profile which could cause missed care and treatment resulting in a decline in health and psycho-social well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained free of accident hazards and that residents received adequate supervision to prevent incidents for two (Resident #1 and Resident #2) of two residents reviewed for elopement. 1. The facility failed to provide Resident #1 and Resident #2 with adequate supervision to prevent each from leaving the building on 11/04/24 around 12:55 AM, when staff were not aware of the elopement until after 6:00 AM, at the start of the next shift. 2. The facility failed to provide Resident #1 with adequate supervision to prevent Resident #1 from removing the Wanderguard and eloping the facility. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance. The Immediate Jeopardy was identified on 11/19/24 and was removed on 11/19/24. [...]
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 safety in the facility's only kitchen. 1. The facility failed to ensure food stored in the refrigerator, freezer, and pantry were labeled, dated, and sealed. 2. The facility failed to ensure a trash can in the food prep area had a lid. 3. The facility failed to ensure lighter fluid was not stored in the dry food storage area. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and food-borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews 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 psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 6 residents, (Resident #1) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's care plan reflected the resident's elopement risk and the use of a wanderguard. This failure could place the residents at risk of elopement and not receiving adequate care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that were completed and accurately documented for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) observed for accuracy of medical records. The facility failed to complete an incident report when Resident #1 removed her Wanderguard and attempted to elope from the facility on 04/17/24. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for elopement and possible injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible for contaminated sharps disposal bins, attached to 2 (100 and 400 Hall) of 6 Nurse Medication Carts and 1 of 1 treatment carts reviewed for hazards. LVN F failed to ensure contaminated sharps in the sharps bin attached to the facility's only treatment cart, was below the full line. LVN G failed to ensure contaminated sharps in the sharps bin attached to the 400 Hall Nurse Medication Cart, was below the full line. LVN H failed to ensure contaminated sharps in the sharps bin attached to the 100 Hall Nurse Medication Cart, was below the full line. These failures placed residents at risk of being exposed to contaminated sharps and possible bloodborne pathogens.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to immediately inform the resident, consult with the resident's physician, and notify consistent with his or her authority, the resident's representative when there was a change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status for 2 (Residents #1 and #2) of 8 residents reviewed for MD notification. RN D failed ensure the MD was notified and document the notification of a missed dialysis appointment when Resident #1's dialysis transport was not available on 07/06/2024. RN D failed ensure the MD was notified and document the notification of a missed dialysis appointment when Resident #2's dialysis transport was not available on 07/06/2024. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure residents who required dialysis received such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 2 (Residents #1 and #2) of 8 residents reviewed for dialysis services. The facility failed to ensure Residents #1 and #2 were provided transportation to their dialysis appointment on 07/06/2024 or make alternate arrangements. The facility did not arrange alternate transportation for Residents #1 and #2 when their regular transport gave notice of cancellation on 07/04/2024. These failures could place residents who receive dialysis at risk for fluid overload and associated health complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure each resident had the right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, which included but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living for 4 of 20 Residents (Resident #3, #32, #12, #10 ) reviewed for environmental concerns. 1. The facility failed to clean the restroom in Resident #3 and Resident #32's room. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #12 and Resident #10 had a lever on the doorhandle. These failures could place residents at risk by exposing them to an unsanitary and an unsafe environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide residents who were unable to carry out ADL activity the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene for 2 (Residents #1, #2) of 9 residents reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 and #2 were provided timely incontinent care as needed. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving personal care services, having decreased quality of life, and skin breakdown.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments for three (Resident #1, Resident # 2 and Resident #3) of six residents reviewed for storage of drugs and biologicals. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 did not have medication of fluticasone propionate nasal spray (flonase) on her bedside table. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's medications of saline nasal spray and biofreeze gel were secured. The facility failed to ensure biofreeze pain gel in her room had a current physician order. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3 did not have medication of chloraseptic throat spray in her room. These deficient practices could place residents at risk of adverse reactions to medications, not being monitored for side effects to medications, and a decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food safety in the facility's only kitchen. 1. The facility failed to ensure food items were properly sealed, dated, and stored in the pantry. 2. The facility failed to ensure food items were properly sealed and stored in the freezer. 3. Dietary Aide H failed to perform proper sanitization of thermometer while checking the temperature of food items. These failures could place all residents, who receive 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 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 three (CNA A and CNA G) of four staff observed and four residents (Resident #73, Resident #61, Resident #43 and Resident #79) of 18 residents observed for infection control. 1. CNA A failed to perform hand hygiene and change gloves during incontinence care for Resident #43. 2. CNA G failed to wear proper PPE while performing incontinent care for Resident #73 and proceeded to provide incontinent care for Resident #61. These failures placed all residents at risk of cross-contamination and infections leading to illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for two (100 and 200 halls Nurses Medication Carts) of the four medication carts and one medication room reviewed for labeling and storage. 1. The facility failed to ensure insulin vials were dated after they were opened. 2. The facility failed to ensure expired insulins and medications were removed from the cart and medication room. The failure could place residents at risk of receiving medications that were ineffective due to not labeling with opening dates and removing the expired medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public on 1 (500 hallway) of 6 hallways observed for physical environment. The facility failed to keep the facility comfortable and free of lingering foul odors. This failure placed all residents who reside in the facility at risk of diminished quality of life, discomfort, and psychosocial harm from being exposed to foul odors in areas of the facility inhabited and utilized by the residents.
14 fire safety citations on file: 4 on May 15, 2025, 7 on April 11, 2024, 3 on March 9, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 15, 2025 | Fine | $16,464 |
| November 21, 2024 | Fine | $8,926 |
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) | 3.31 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.36 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.01 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.68 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.27 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 48.3% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 25.0% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.92 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 3.43 on weekdays and 3.01 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.14 in April to June 2025 to 3.31 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 | 3.31 | 0.36 | 3.43 | 3.01 | 0.5% | 0 of 90 | 84 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.19 | 0.42 | 3.28 | 2.98 | 0.9% | 0 of 92 | 84 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.30 | 0.50 | 3.44 | 2.94 | 0.6% | 0 of 92 | 82 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.14 | 0.45 | 3.31 | 2.72 | 1.1% | 0 of 91 | 92 |
| 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. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| 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 | 8.5 | 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 | 0.0 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.5 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.5 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.7 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.6 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for The Villa at Mountain View's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (32.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
32.1% this home
Worse than 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. 39 eligible stays.
12.3% 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. 39 eligible stays.
8.2% 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. 27 eligible stays.
59.0% 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. 39 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. 54 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. 54 residents counted.
89.3% this home
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. 28 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 | |
| Villa Health Care Center Ltd Co | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 02/15/2015 | |
| Scott, Trackea | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/21/2024 | |
| Villa Health Care Center Ltd Co | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/04/2025 | |
| Chretien, Kuanda | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/09/2024 | |
| Scott, Trackea | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/21/2024 |
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.