15015 Cypress Woods Medical Dr, Houston, TX 77014 · Harris County · (281) 586-6088
120 certified beds, about 107 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2009
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 676239 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 6, 2026, inspectors cited 2 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 37 health citations since December 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $24,854 in the last three years; the largest was $15,886, and the latest is dated September 12, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.30 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.34 of those hours.
91.4% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Creative Solutions in Healthcare, an affiliated group of 149 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 37 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to designate a registered nurse to serve as the DON (Director of Nursing) on a full-time basis for 1 of 1 DON reviewed for DON coverage. The facility failed to have a full-time DON from 06/24/2026 to 07/08/2026. This failure could place residents at risk of lack of nursing administrative oversight that only the DON can provide. During an interview on 07/08/26 at 9:00 AM, the Administrator stated the former DON, who was an RN, accepted a corporate position, was currently in training but had returned every now and then over the past 2 weeks (06/24/26 to 07/08/26) to finish some work. The Administrator stated the facility's two ADONs, who were LVNs, were assigned to the DON duties until the newly hired DON begins work at the end of July 2026. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for 2 of 4 (LVN A, CNA B) staff members reviewed for food service safety. The facility failed to ensure LVN A and CNA B's hands were washed or sanitized before and between serving residents their meals during breakfast in the secured unit. This failure placed the residents at risk for cross contamination, foodborne illness, and transmission of infectious organisms.
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 psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 6 (Resident #7) residents reviewed for comprehensive assessments. The facility failed to revise Resident #7's care plan with intervention after completing an elopement assessment when the resident scored high risk for eloping. This failure could result in the care plans not reflecting the residents' status, needs, and interventions and the potential to lead to unmet needs, inconsistent care, and avoidable decline.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were offered sufficient fluid intake to maintain proper hydration and health for 8 of 32 residents (Residents #1, #6, #7, #8, #9, #11, #14 and #15) reviewed for hydration. The facility failed to ensure Residents #1, #6, #7, #8, #9, #11, #14 and #15 were offered the minimum quantity of fluids daily to maintain hydration on 03/17/2026 and 03/18/2026. This failure could place residents at risk of dehydration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents for 1 of 12 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accommodations of needs. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 had a call button that he could use with his contracted hands. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their needs met.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 1 of 32 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 was checked for and provided with incontinence care from 09:10 AM to 03:30 PM on 03/17/2026. This failure could place residents at risk of discomfort, embarrassment, and skin breakdown.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident has a right to secure and confidential personal and clinical records. A. One of 12 residents (Resident #1) on 300 Hall had his personal health information left on the unlocked computer screen on LVN A's nursing cart. This failure could result in Resident #1's personal information being exposed to unauthorized individuals. This problem had the potential to affect all 24 residents in care of LVN A on 11/13/2025.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observations and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the residents were free from any physical or chemical restraints imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience and not required to treat the residents' medical symptoms for 3 of 28 residents observed for restraints/bed rails. The facility failed to ensure that bedrails were not used on the side of Residents #2, Resident #3 and Resident #4's bed without the resident having been evaluated for the medical need. This failure could result in residents having physical restraints used that limited their movement without being evaluated for the medical need.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents receive proper treatment and care to maintain mobility, and good foot health. The facility failed to ensure toenails are trimmed regularly and free from abnormal nail conditions and ingrown toenails for 2 of 6 residents (Resident #5 and Resident #6) reviewed for foot care. This failure could place residents at risk of infection, pain, injury and altered gait.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assured the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 4 residents (Residents #8) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure RN A checked the pharmacy delivery before signing off that medication delivered was correct. The medication RN A signed for could not be located. These failures could result in residents not receiving their medications as ordered and have adverse effects due to the medications not being administered. Findings Included:An interview was conducted on 11/13/2025 at 4:21PM with LVN B who reported being employed at the facility for 3 weeks. LVN B stated that all LVNs complete audits of the MC which should be done daily. [...]
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 control and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 1 (medication cart #1) of 2 medication carts reviewed for medication storage. The facility failed to ensure that MC #1 did not have unidentifiable medications in the bottom of the MC drawer. This failure could result in residents not receiving their medications as ordered and have adverse effects due to the medications not being administered.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rate was not five percent or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 18.52% based on 5 errors out of 27 opportunities, which involved three (Resident #26, Resident #37, and Resident #77) of seven residents reviewed for medication errors. 1. The facility failed to ensure that Resident 26's Ferrous Sulfate 300 (60 Fe) mg/5ml and Calcium-Vitamin D 600-200 mg were available at the time of observation and administered as ordered. 2. The facility failed to ensure that Resident 37's Glucosamine HCL 500 mg was available at the time of observation and administered as ordered. 3. The facility failed to ensure that Resident 77's Fish Oil 1000 mg was administered correctly as Resident 77 was administered Fish Oil 1200 mg. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals used in the facility must include the expiration date when applicable for five out of five residents (Resident #20, Resident #81, Resident #35, Resident #2, and Resident #299) reviewed for expired medication. The facility failed to ensure that Latanoprost eye drops (Latanoprost is used to treat certain types of Glaucoma and other causes of high pressure inside the eye) were labeled with expiration date for Resident #20, Resident #81, Resident #35, Resident #2, and Resident #299. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic effects of prescribed medications or receiving potentially harmful side effects from prescribed medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the facility's only kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation. -The facility failed to label, and date left over foods items in 1 of 1 walk in-cooler in the kitchen. -The facility failed to ensure that expired food products were not stored in the food pantry (dry goods area). These failures could place residents at risk for food-borne illness and food contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of 1 (Resident #300) of 6 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure that medications were administered to Resident #300 on 3/6/2024 when she was admitted to the facility. This failure could place residents at risk of not having appropriate therapeutic effects from prescribed medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for 4 (CR #1 and Resident #2, and Resident #6 and Resident #7) of 6 residents. The facility failed to protect Resident #6 from being slapped by CR#1 resulting in CR#1 being grabbed by Resident #7 on 1/26/24 at 9:15 am. The facility failed to supervise CR#1, who was on 1:1 supervision, when CR#1 hit Resident #2 on 1/26/24 at approximately 5:30 p.m. This failure placed residents at risk of harm and injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 3 of 3 Residents (Resident #3, #4 and #5 ) observed for infection control, in that: MA A failed to sanitize blood pressure cuff after each use for Resident #3, and Resident #5 MA A failed to use proper hand hygiene while passing medications to Resident #3, Resident #4, and Resident #5. MA A failed to maintain a clean work space/med cart while passing medications to Resident #3, Resident #4 and Resident #5. These failures place residents at risk of cross contamination and infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for call lights. The facility failed to have a call light within reach for Resident #1 to call for assistance. This failure could place residents at risk for a delay in care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who are unable to carry out the activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain grooming and personal hygiene care for 1 (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for ADL care. -The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was provided timely incontinent care. These failures could place residents who required ADL care at risk of not receiving personal care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's environment remained as free of accidents and hazards as possible and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for transfers in that: - CNA A failed to provide incontinence care with another staff member when Resident #1 required assistance of 2 staff, which resulted in the resident rolling off the bed on 8/19/24, sustaining a right femur fracture, and requiring surgery. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 9/30/24. The IJ template was provided to the facility on 9/30/24 at 2:46p.m. [...]
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 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for infection control. -CNA K and CNA T did not wear a gown when providing dressing, transferring and providing incontinent/peri care to Resident #1 who was on enhanced barrier precautions (an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms in nursing homes) on 12/19/24. This failure could place residents at risk of infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to immediately consult with the resident's physician when there was a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status (that is, a deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complication) for 1 (Resident #1) of 15 residents reviewed for physician notification. The facility failed to consult with the physician when Resident #1 developed a rash on her arms, legs, and back. These failures could place residents at risk of not having their physician informed and residents not receiving adequate medical interventions, not having their care needs met, not being seen by physicians, and not receiving adequate and timely interventions, which could cause a decline in physical and psychosocial health and even death.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to conduct initially and periodically a comprehensive, accurate, standardized reproducible assessment of each resident's functional capacity for 1 (Resident #1) of 15 residents reviewed for comprehensive assessments in that. The facility did not complete 2 weeks of Weekly Skin Assessments for Resident #1, which resulted in the development of an unexplained rash. These failures could place residents at risk of not having all medical needs assessed and met in a timely fashion. Findings Included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet reviewed on 09/11/24 revealed an eighty-five-year-old woman who was admitted on [DATE]. Her admitting diagnoses were dementia, anxiety disorder, malnutrition, and hypertension. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained free of accident hazards as possible, and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent elopement for two of seven residents (Resident #4 and Resident #5) reviewed for accident hazards and supervision. -The facility failed to ensure Resident #4 had adequate supervision on 4/5/2024 and 4/30/2024 which allowed her to elope from the facility's memory care unit. -The facility failed to ensure Resident #5 had adequate supervision on 4/30/2024 which allowed her to elope from the facility's memory care unit at a different time from Resident #4. -The facility failed to ensure the memory care unit's secured doors remained secured on 4/5/2024 and 4/30/2024 allowing two residents to elope. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to send and receive mail, and to receive letters, packages, and other materials delivered to the facility for the resident through the means other than a postal service for 6 of 6 confidential residents reviewed for weekend mail delivery. The facility failed to ensure residents received their mail on the weekend. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving mail in a timely manner that could result in a decline in resident's psychosocial well-being and quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident was provided a communication system to call for assistance for 5 (Resident #13, Resident #34, Resident #43, Resident #51, and Resident #70) of 16 residents reviewed for call light placement. -The call light was observed on the floor, under the bed, in a location inaccessible to the resident when in each resident's room. This failure could place the residents at risk for not being able to call for help when needed, contribute to falls and injury, and/or psychosocial decline.
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, which included measurable objectives and time frames to meet resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychological needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 out of 18 residents (Resident #21) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. -The facility failed to ensure Resident #21's use of bedrails was added to her individualized care plan. -The facility failed to ensure Resident #21's bed was in a low position. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving care and services needed to maintain their highest practicable quality of life, and possible falls leading to injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight or desirable body weight range and electrolyte balance, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that this is not possible or resident preferences indicate otherwise for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #54) reviewed for nutritional status. The facility failed to remove Residents #54's mighty shake from her meal ticket in accordance with Dietitian recommendations and Physician orders. This failure could place residents at risk of weight gain.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident was assessed and had consents for bed rails for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #21) reviewed for bed rails. -The facility failed to obtain consent prior to installing and utilizing bedrails for Resident #21. -The facility failed to complete an assessment prior to installing and utilizing bedrails for Resident #21. These failures could affect residents who utilized some type of bed rails in the facility and could put the residents at risk for potential injuries.
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 service safety in 2 of 2 facility refrigerators reviewed for food procurement. - The facility failed to discard expired and unlabeled food items in the kitchen and nourishment room refrigerators. -The facility failed to store food according to manufacturer instructions. These failures could affect residents who ate food from the facility kitchen and place them at risk of foodborne illness and cross-contamination.
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 of 18 residents (Resident #60) reviewed for infection. -The facility failed to ensure CNA JJ and CNA RRRR performed hand hygiene during incontinent care on Resident #60. -The facility failed to ensure CNA BB used hand hygiene when passing meals to residents. These failures could lead to the spread of infection to residents, resident illness, and/or resident distress.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse, neglect or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown origin was reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made for 1 (Resident#28) out of 4 residents reviewed for reporting alleged abuse and neglect. -The facility failed to report Resident#28's fracture of lumber spine that was discovered on 11/08/2023 to the state agency. This failure could place residents at risk for not having incidents reported as required and continued abuse and neglect which could result in diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan is reviewed and revised by an interdisciplinary team after each assessment for 1 (Resident #24) of 6 residents reviewed for care plan revisions, in that: -Resident # 24's care plan did not reflect the use of foley catheter. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving appropriate interventions to meet their current needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents who were incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible for 1 of 5 resident (Resident #60) reviewed for incontinent care. -The facility failed to ensure CNA JJ and CNA RRRR properly cleaned Resident #60 during incontinent care. This failure could place residents at risk for urinary tract infections (UTI), urethral erosions, discomfort, skin breakdown, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents who needed respiratory care were provided with such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 (Resident #23) of 4 residents reviewed for respiratory care, in that: -Resident #23's Nebulizer mask was not changed in over 14 days. This failure could place residents that receive oxygen therapy at risk for inadequate care and respiratory infection. Findings Include: Record review of Resident #23's Face Sheet (undated) revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that drug records were in order and that an account of all controlled drugs was maintained and periodically reconciled for 1 (skilled unit nurses' cart) of 4 medication carts reviewed for controlled drugs. The facility failed to document that one of Resident #47's ten morphine syringes contained 0.5 mL instead of 0.25 mL. The 0.5 mL syringe was rubber banded together with the 0.25 mL syringes. This failure could result in a medication error or drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rate was not five percent or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 7%, based on 2 errors out of 26 opportunities, which involved 1 (Resident #57) of 6 residents reviewed for medication errors in that: -MA E administered Celecoxib (a medication used to treat pain or inflammation) to Resident #57 without a physician's order and did not administer Vitamin D to Resident #57 as ordered by the physician. These failures could place residents at risk of inadequate therapeutic outcomes.
9 fire safety citations on file: 3 on May 6, 2026, 3 on February 28, 2025, 3 on December 1, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| September 12, 2024 | Fine | $15,886 |
| September 12, 2024 | Payment Denial | 11 days from December 12, 2024 |
| August 9, 2024 | Fine | $8,968 |
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) | 3.30 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.34 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.95 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.99 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.97 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 91.4% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 78.6% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.50 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 3.45 on weekdays and 2.95 on weekends, 14% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.21 in April to June 2025 to 3.30 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 | 3.30 | 0.34 | 3.45 | 2.95 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 107 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.45 | 0.42 | 3.59 | 3.11 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 103 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.22 | 0.48 | 3.35 | 2.87 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 106 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.21 | 0.38 | 3.34 | 2.88 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 100 |
| 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 | 14.0 | 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 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.1 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.2 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.5 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.8 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Villa Toscana at Cypress Woods's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (46.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
46.3% 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. 37 eligible stays.
12.9% 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. 48 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 18 eligible stays.
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: 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. 17 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. 27 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. 27 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. 4 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: WEST WHARTON COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Creative Solutions in Healthcare, a group of 149 nursing homes averaging 2.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bowers, Sean | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 07/01/2024 | |
| Cisneros, Alfred | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 02/18/2008 | |
| Cobb, Travis | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 10/05/2022 | |
| Cooper, Stephen | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/11/2022 | |
| Hardin, Sherrie | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/04/2024 | |
| Kerzee, Richard | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/24/2007 | |
| Korenek, Patricia | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/05/2018 | |
| Soechting, Paul | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/22/2024 | |
| Strack, Joe | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 02/11/2022 | |
| Thompson, Johnny | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Thompson, Johnny | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Willig, Zachary | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2026 | |
| Houston I Enterprises, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2022 | |
| Blake, Gary | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2022 | |
| Blake, Malisa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2022 | |
| Houston I Enterprises, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/20/2026 | |
| Blake, Gary | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2022 | |
| Guerrero, Teresa | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Trullia, Mark | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/20/2026 |
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.