Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
The next survey window likely opens around January 2027
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Cascades At Jacinto Rehab Lp during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with aphasia and chronic kidney disease was admitted with documented redness on the right thigh and a physician order for weekly skin assessments. The admission evaluation instructed staff to complete a thorough head-to-toe skin assessment, but the next-day skilled documentation by an LVN indicated the resident had no skin conditions. Later that day, a hospital documented redness and bruising to the hip, back, and leg, and the DON reported to a hospital physician that bruising had been present on admission but had enlarged. Facility CNAs and an LVN gave inconsistent accounts of seeing or not seeing bruising, with one LVN stating she used only bathroom light and that night nurses did not typically perform full skin assessments. The DON and ADON acknowledged that admitting nurses were responsible for initial skin assessments, that staff generally did not measure skin conditions, and that a recent EMR change contributed to incomplete documentation. These actions and omissions resulted in incomplete and inaccurate skin assessment and documentation, contrary to the facility’s Skin Management policy and the physician’s orders.
Surveyors identified that multiple resident rooms were not maintained in a clean, sanitary, and homelike condition, with observations of sticky and heavily stained floors, peeling paint, torn or missing window blinds and privacy curtains, dirty vents, ceiling gaps, brown stains on walls, and dirty clothing left on the floor near full trashcans. Staff, including the Maintenance Director, Administrator, DON, LVNs, and CNAs, reported that rooms are supposed to be cleaned daily by housekeeping with additional monitoring by CNAs, acknowledged that many rooms needed additional cleaning and repairs such as painting and blind replacement, and confirmed that unclean rooms create an unsanitary environment for residents.
Surveyors found that two three-bed rooms in a secure unit were undersized, providing only about 73–74 sq ft per resident instead of the required 80 sq ft. Facility records classified several rooms as three-bed rooms, but the Administrator lacked documentation authorizing three beds and acknowledged the 80 sq ft per-resident requirement. The Maintenance Director measured the rooms, confirmed the insufficient space, and reported being unaware of the exact square footage requirement, noting potential risks such as falls, trips, clutter, and limited evacuation space.
The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program, resulting in live flies and gnats being observed in a hallway, conference room, and a shared room of two residents with severe cognitive impairment. Staff and residents reported ongoing issues with pests, and facility records showed only monthly pest control services, with staff expressing concerns about their effectiveness.
A resident with a history of elopement and cognitive impairment exited the secured unit through a window that lacked an alarm, despite being identified as a high-risk wanderer and having a care plan for monitoring and diversional interventions. Staff discovered the resident missing during meal service, and the window was found open with the screen pushed out. The resident was later located at a previous residence, but staff were unable to assess for injury after the incident.
A resident with chronic kidney disease and an indwelling urinary catheter was found with a urine collection bag positioned above bladder level after being transferred to a recliner. The CNA responsible admitted to not placing the bag correctly due to rushing, despite knowing the proper procedure. The resident was dependent on staff for most ADLs and was being treated for a UTI at the time. Facility policy required the drainage bag to be kept below the bladder to prevent infection.
A resident with a history of major depressive disorder and previous suicide attempts was found with a call light wire around his neck, indicating a possible suicide attempt. Despite the severity of the situation, the facility failed to report the incident to the state agency in a timely manner, as required by their policy. The resident was sent to the hospital, but the facility's DON and Administrator were not immediately informed, delaying the reporting process. This failure to adhere to policies and procedures could place residents at risk of continued or unrecognized mistreatment.
A resident with a history of depression and previous suicide attempt was found with a call light wire around his neck, indicating a possible suicide attempt. The facility staff removed the wire and called 911, but failed to report the incident to the state agency within the required 24-hour timeframe. Interviews revealed no prior signs of suicidal ideation, and the delay in reporting was due to the DON and Administrator not being immediately informed.
The facility failed to maintain RN coverage for at least 8 consecutive hours on three specific days, potentially risking missed nursing assessments and care. Record reviews showed no RN was present, and the DON worked limited hours on those days. Interviews confirmed the requirement for RN presence, and the facility's policy mandates RN services daily.
A LTC facility experienced a 17% medication error rate involving two residents and two staff members. Errors included crushing medications that should not be crushed, administering another resident's medication, and using the wrong type of flush for IV maintenance. The involved residents had varying cognitive impairments and medical conditions, and the errors were acknowledged by the facility's DON and Administrator.
Two residents experienced a lack of privacy during medical procedures. An LVN administered medication via g-tube to a resident without closing the privacy curtain, while another LVN performed an IV flush in the hallway. Both actions were contrary to facility policy on resident dignity and privacy.
Two LVNs failed to follow infection control protocols in a facility, with one not wearing appropriate PPE while administering medication via a PEG tube to a resident on enhanced barrier precautions, and another not donning a gown while performing an IV flush on a resident with an IV site. Both residents had specific care plans requiring enhanced barrier precautions, which were not followed, potentially risking infection.
A facility failed to follow up on a Dietitian's recommendations for a resident with severe weight loss, who had a history of cancer, malnutrition, and other health issues. Despite the resident's reported good oral intake, her weight continued to decline. The Dietitian's recommendations for liquid protein and supplements were not implemented due to a communication breakdown and format issues in the submission of recommendations. This oversight led to the resident not receiving necessary nutritional support.
A medication aide in an LTC facility administered Gabapentin intended for one resident to another due to a failure to verify the resident's name during preparation. The error involved a resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple health issues. The facility's policy requires checking medication details three times, which was not adhered to, leading to the error.
Failure to Perform and Document Accurate Skin Assessments for Newly Admitted Resident
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that nursing staff had and used appropriate competencies to complete accurate and thorough skin assessments for a newly admitted resident, as required by physician orders and facility policy. The resident was an older adult male admitted with diagnoses including aphasia following cerebral infarction and anemia in chronic kidney disease. On admission, the Clinical Evaluation documented redness on the front and rear right thigh and directed staff to complete a thorough head-to-toe skin assessment and identify all abnormalities. A physician order dated the day of admission required weekly skin assessments starting the following day. Progress notes confirmed the resident’s admission and that he was to be transferred to a local hospital the next morning for feeding tube replacement. On the morning after admission, the Daily Skilled Documentation completed by LVN C indicated “no” to the question asking whether the resident had any skin conditions, despite the prior documentation of redness to the right thigh and the physician’s order for skin assessments. Later that same day, documentation from the local hospital recorded skin integrity findings of redness and bruising to the right hip, back, and leg. A subsequent progress note from the facility documented that the DON spoke with a hospital physician who reported bruising on the resident’s leg that was getting progressively worse; the DON stated to the physician that the bruising had been present on admission but was not as large. However, there was no complete or accurate skin assessment in the facility record reflecting the presence, description, or progression of this bruising. Interviews with facility staff showed inconsistent recognition and documentation of the resident’s skin condition and revealed gaps in assessment practices. LVN C, who cared for the resident on the morning shift and transferred him to the hospital, recalled excoriation on the bottom and groin and a healed great toe amputation but denied seeing any large bruising. CNA C, who changed the resident’s brief overnight, reported not seeing any bruising and noted the resident did not express pain when turned. LVN B, who had the resident on the night shift, stated she observed a previous injury on the leg that she thought was a bruise or discoloration but could not recall which side; she also stated she only used light from the bathroom to avoid waking the resident and that night nurses did not typically perform full skin assessments. The ADON and DON confirmed that admitting nurses were responsible for initial skin assessments, that staff generally did not measure bruises or other skin conditions, and that documentation practices were affected by a recent change in the electronic medical record system. The facility’s Skin Management policy required identification, assessment, and ongoing monitoring of individuals at risk for skin compromise, but the resident’s records and staff interviews demonstrated that these assessments were not completed completely and correctly for this resident. Observation at the local hospital two days after admission showed a large red and purplish bruise starting above the right hip and extending down the right thigh, measuring 15 inches in length. Hospital nursing staff confirmed the presence of bruising but did not have measurements from the time of transfer. Facility leadership acknowledged that skin conditions, including bruises that were getting larger, should be documented and that inaccurate or incomplete skin assessment documentation could allow conditions to worsen. Despite this, the resident’s facility documentation did not accurately reflect the bruising described by the hospital physician and observed later, nor did it align with the facility’s own policy requiring thorough skin assessments and ongoing monitoring. This combination of incomplete assessment, inconsistent staff observations, and inadequate documentation constituted the failure to ensure sufficient nursing staff with appropriate competencies and skill sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and to attain or maintain the highest practicable well-being of the resident. The report explicitly states that the facility failed to ensure that skin assessments were completed completely and correctly for this resident. The DON and ADON described that nurses generally did not measure skin conditions and relied on descriptive documentation, and that the transition to a new computer charting system contributed to confusion about how to document existing versus new skin issues. The Administrator further noted that features needed for documentation were still being added to the electronic medical record and that staff needed education on the new system. These statements, combined with the lack of accurate skin assessment entries and the discrepancy between facility records and hospital findings, demonstrate that the nursing staff did not consistently apply the competencies and skills necessary to assess, evaluate, plan, and implement care related to the resident’s skin condition as required by the facility’s Skin Management policy and the physician’s orders.
Failure to Maintain Clean, Safe, and Homelike Resident Rooms
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a clean, sanitary, safe, and homelike environment in multiple resident rooms. Surveyors observed that several rooms had floors with thick, dark, dirty stains along the edges and corners, and some floors were described as dirty and sticky. In one room, the bed was positioned close to a torn window blind, and in other rooms, window blinds were torn, damaged, or missing entirely. One room lacked both a window blind and a privacy curtain, and the wall by the window had brown stains on the bottom. Additional observations included multiple dirty resident clothing items on the floor near a full dirty trashcan, holes or gaps in the ceiling, and an air vent with thick black dirt on the vents. The bathroom floor in one room had dark stains along the corners and behind the toilet. In another room, the base of the wall near the entrance was peeled off with brown liquid around it. Walls in multiple rooms were in poor condition with paint visibly peeling off in several areas, and staff interviews confirmed that many resident rooms needed painting and that window blinds were torn and required replacement. Staff interviews revealed that housekeeping was expected to clean resident rooms once daily and as needed, with CNAs responsible for monitoring rooms after housekeeping rounds and picking up dirty laundry. The Maintenance Director stated that she checked each room daily for hazards and acknowledged that the rooms observed did not feel homelike and that the black substance on the vent and the ceiling gap were not acceptable. The Administrator, DON, LVNs, and a CNA all acknowledged that resident rooms should be clean, safe, and homelike, and confirmed that unclean rooms would be unsanitary for residents. The Administrator also acknowledged that there had been instances where cleaning duties were not completed as expected and that environmental issues remained due to the age of the building and competing priorities, despite ongoing efforts.
Noncompliant Room Square Footage in Multi-Occupancy Rooms
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide the required minimum of 80 square feet per resident in two multiple-occupancy rooms. Form 3740 Bed Classifications, signed by the Administrator, listed rooms #311, #312, #313, #314, #315, and #316 as three-bed rooms. During surveyor review, rooms #311 and #314 in the secure unit were measured by the Maintenance Director and found to be approximately 220–221.3 square feet each, which equated to about 73–74 square feet per resident when occupied by three residents. The Administrator acknowledged that each resident was required to have 80 square feet and that these rooms did not meet that standard. During interviews, the Administrator stated she did not have documentation showing that three beds were allowed in these rooms and reported that the corporate office had previously informed her that a waiver was not needed. The Maintenance Director reported being unsure of the required amount of space per resident and stated that no concerns had been brought to her about room size or number of beds. She identified that risks associated with inadequate space could include falls, trips, clutter, and insufficient space for evacuation. These observations, interviews, and record reviews established that rooms #311 and #314 did not meet the minimum square footage requirement per resident.
Failure to Maintain Effective Pest Control Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program, resulting in the presence of live flies and gnats in one of the hallways, a conference room, and a shared resident room. Observations revealed two gnats in the conference room and one gnat in the hallway outside the conference room. In the shared room of two residents, two flies were observed, with one fly landing on a resident's linen and another on a bedside table. One of the residents confirmed seeing flies in the room regularly but had not reported it to staff. Both residents in the affected room had severe cognitive impairment, as indicated by their BIMS scores of 3, and one had a principal diagnosis of unspecified psychosis while the other had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Staff interviews revealed that the pest control company serviced the facility monthly, but staff, including the Maintenance Director and DON, expressed concerns about the effectiveness of the pest control measures. The Maintenance Director reported frequent sightings of gnats and roaches and had unsuccessfully requested increased pest control visits. Facility records showed monthly pest control invoices for ant, spider, and roach prevention, but there was no detailed documentation of the treatment provided for the most recent visit. The facility's pest control policy required an ongoing program to keep the building free of insects and rodents, but the presence of pests in resident and common areas indicated that this policy was not effectively implemented at the time of the survey.
Failure to Prevent Elopement from Secured Unit
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident with a history of elopement and cognitive impairment was able to leave the secured unit of the facility through a window. The resident had previously attempted to escape through a window at another facility and was admitted to the secured unit based on family input and prior history. Despite being identified as a high-risk wanderer and having a care plan that included interventions such as monitoring during rounds and diversional activities, the resident was able to open a window and exit the facility undetected by staff. On the day of the incident, staff discovered the resident missing during meal tray distribution and found the window in the resident's room open. There were no alarms on the windows in the secured unit, and the window screen had been pushed out. Staff initiated the elopement protocol and notified law enforcement, but there were no witnesses to the resident leaving. The resident was later located at a previous residence by a neighbor, but staff were unable to assess the resident for possible injury after the elopement. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the resident did not display exit-seeking behaviors prior to the incident and was considered quiet and pleasant. The decision to place the resident in the secured unit was based on prior elopement attempts and family recommendations, rather than solely on cognitive assessment scores. The facility's elopement prevention policies required monitoring and specific interventions for high-risk residents, but the lack of window alarms and the ability for windows to be opened wide enough for egress contributed to the resident's ability to elope.
Improper Positioning of Urine Collection Bag for Catheterized Resident
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a certified nursing assistant (CNA) failed to position the urine collection bag of an indwelling urinary catheter below the bladder of a resident after transferring the resident from bed to a recliner. The urine collection bag was observed hooked on the armrest of the recliner, which was above the resident's bladder level. This was confirmed by a licensed vocational nurse (LVN) who stated that the bag should not be at or above the bladder due to the risk of infection from potential backflow of urine. The CNA acknowledged awareness of the correct procedure but admitted to rushing and leaving the bag in the wrong position. The resident involved had chronic kidney disease, urinary retention, and was dependent on staff for most activities of daily living. The care plan included goals to prevent infection but did not specify the need to keep the urinary catheter bag below bladder level. The resident was being treated for a urinary tract infection at the time of the incident. Facility policy required that the drainage bag be positioned lower than the bladder at all times to prevent complications, including urinary tract infections.
Failure to Report and Prevent Abuse in Resident with Suicidal Ideation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement its written policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft, specifically in the case of a resident who was found with a call light wire wrapped around his neck, indicating a possible suicide attempt. The incident occurred when a CNA discovered the resident in this state and called for help. Despite the severity of the situation, the facility did not report the incident to the state agency in a timely manner, as required by their policy. The resident involved was a male with a history of major depressive disorder, anxiety, Alzheimer's disease, and a previous suicide attempt. He was admitted to the facility from a behavioral hospital and was care-planned for suicidal ideation. On the night of the incident, the resident was found lethargic with ligature marks on his neck, and he was subsequently sent to the hospital. Interviews with staff revealed that the resident had not shown signs of suicidal ideation prior to the incident, and there was a lack of communication regarding his previous suicide attempt. The facility's Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator were not immediately informed of the incident, which delayed the reporting process. The DON believed that the incident did not meet the criteria for immediate reporting under new state guidelines, as the resident did not have an injury of unknown origin and did not expire at the facility. However, the Administrator expressed concern about the lack of timely reporting, emphasizing the importance of reporting unusual incidents to protect residents. The facility's failure to adhere to its policies and procedures for reporting abuse and neglect could place residents at risk of continued or unrecognized mistreatment.
Failure to Timely Report Possible Suicide Attempt
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report an alleged violation involving a possible suicide attempt by a resident within the required 24-hour timeframe to the state agency. The incident involved a resident who was found in bed with a call light wire wrapped around his neck, which was considered a possible suicide attempt. Despite the seriousness of the situation, the facility did not notify the state agency until the following day, which is a violation of the reporting requirements. The resident involved was a male with a history of major depressive disorder, anxiety, Alzheimer's disease, and a previous suicide attempt. On the night of the incident, a CNA found the resident with the call light wire around his neck and called for help. The resident was lethargic but responsive to verbal and touch stimuli. The staff removed the wire, assessed the resident's condition, and called 911. The resident was then transported to the hospital for further evaluation. Interviews with facility staff revealed that there were no prior indications of suicidal ideation from the resident, and he was generally described as quiet and polite. The Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator were not immediately informed of the incident, which contributed to the delay in reporting to the state agency. The facility's policy requires immediate reporting of such incidents to the administrator and other officials according to state law, which was not adhered to in this case.
Failure to Maintain Required RN Coverage
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the presence of a registered nurse (RN) for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week, on three specific days: 9/21/24, 9/29/24, and 10/20/24. Record reviews indicated that no RN signed in or was scheduled on these days. The Director of Nursing (DON) worked only 4.6 hours on 9/21/24, did not work on 9/29/24, and worked 6.93 hours on 10/20/24. This lack of RN coverage could potentially place residents at risk of missed nursing assessments, interventions, care, and treatment. Interviews with the DON and the Administrator confirmed the requirement for an RN to be present for 8 consecutive hours daily. The DON typically covered RN duties when no other RN was available, but was unsure why coverage was lacking on the specified days. The Administrator acknowledged the absence of RN coverage and mentioned that the DON had been working weekends to fill this gap until a new RN was hired for weekend shifts. The facility's policy mandates RN services for at least 8 consecutive hours every day, highlighting the importance of RN presence for tasks such as direct supervision, incident reporting, and managing IV and PICC lines.
Medication Administration Errors in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a medication error rate below 5%, resulting in a 17% error rate. This was based on 5 errors out of 29 opportunities involving two residents and two staff members. One medication aide, MA A, crushed and administered medications that should not be crushed, including Divalproex DR and Oxybutynin ER, to a resident. Additionally, MA A administered another resident's Sertraline to the same resident and used chewable Aspirin instead of the prescribed enteric-coated Aspirin. The resident involved in these errors was a male with severe cognitive impairment, diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, major depressive disorder, and other conditions. His care plan required medications to be administered as ordered, but MA A failed to adhere to these orders. MA A admitted to using another resident's medication due to unavailability and was under the impression that borrowing medication was acceptable for one-time use. The Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator confirmed that this practice was against facility policy. Another error involved LVN B, who administered a Heparin lock flush instead of the prescribed normal saline flush to a different resident. This resident had intact cognition and was on IV antibiotics for an acute infection. LVN B mistakenly used the Heparin flush, believing it was normal saline, and later realized the error. The DON and the resident's physician were notified, and although the physician stated there was no harm, the error was acknowledged as a deviation from the prescribed care.
Failure to Ensure Resident Privacy During Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents' right to privacy during personal care for two residents. In the first instance, a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN A) did not close the privacy curtain between Resident #56 and her roommate while administering medication via a gastrostomy tube. This oversight occurred despite the presence of the roommate in the room, and LVN A acknowledged forgetting to pull the curtain due to the roommate's anxiety when the curtain was closed. Resident #56, a female with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions, including a gastrostomy infection and hemiplegia, was dependent on staff for activities of daily living and tube feeding. In the second instance, LVN B administered an intravenous (IV) flush to Resident #20 in the middle of the hallway, with other residents and staff present. Resident #20, a male with intact cognition and a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, was receiving IV antibiotics for an acute infection. LVN B stated that she typically administered flushes in the hallway or near the nursing station without issue, although she did educate the resident on privacy. The Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator both emphasized the importance of privacy and dignity, stating that such procedures should not occur in the hallway.
Inadequate Infection Control Practices by LVNs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program, as evidenced by the actions of LVN A and LVN B. LVN A did not wear the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) when administering medication via a PEG tube to a resident who was on enhanced barrier precautions. Despite the presence of a sign on the resident's door indicating the need for gloves and a gown, LVN A only donned gloves and used an oxygen key from her pocket to declog the resident's g-tube, which could introduce infection. The resident had a history of severe cognitive impairment and required tube feeding due to dysphagia. Similarly, LVN B did not adhere to the facility's infection control protocols when administering an IV flush to another resident who was also on enhanced barrier precautions. LVN B only wore gloves and did not don a gown, despite the resident's care plan indicating the need for full PPE, including a face mask, gown, and gloves, due to the presence of an IV site. The resident had intact cognition and required assistance with activities of daily living. Interviews with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the facility's Administrator revealed that the staff had been educated on enhanced barrier precautions, which required the use of gloves and gowns during high-contact care activities. However, both LVNs failed to comply with these protocols, potentially placing residents at risk of infection. The facility's policies on enhanced barrier precautions and medication administration emphasized the importance of following established infection control procedures, which were not adhered to in these instances.
Failure to Implement Dietitian's Recommendations for Nutritional Support
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident maintained acceptable nutritional status, as evidenced by the lack of follow-up on the Registered Dietitian's recommendations for addressing severe weight loss. The resident, a female with a history of malignant neoplasm of the pancreas, moderate protein-calorie malnutrition, type 2 diabetes, and heart failure, experienced significant weight loss over several months. Despite the resident's oral intake being reported as generally 100% of meals, her weight continued to decline, indicating a failure to implement necessary dietary interventions. The Registered Dietitian recommended liquid protein and a 2.0 supplement to support the resident's nutritional intake. However, these recommendations were not followed up on by the facility's Director of Nursing (DON), as they were not submitted in the expected individualized form but rather on a spreadsheet. The DON admitted to missing these recommendations due to the format in which they were received and did not ensure that the necessary physician's orders were obtained to implement the dietary changes. Interviews with facility staff, including the DON and the Administrator, revealed a breakdown in communication and adherence to the facility's procedures for handling dietary recommendations. The Administrator acknowledged that the Dietitian did not follow the facility's system for submitting recommendations, and the DON failed to follow up on the recommendations due to the format discrepancy. This oversight resulted in the resident not receiving the recommended nutritional supplements, potentially impacting her health status.
Medication Administration Error Due to Verification Lapse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services that ensured the accurate administration of medications, as evidenced by an incident involving the administration of Gabapentin. A medication aide (MA K) mistakenly administered Gabapentin intended for one resident to another resident. This error occurred because MA K did not verify the resident's name while preparing the medications, despite being trained to check the right resident, medication name, dose, and route. The medications for the two residents were stored next to each other, which contributed to the mix-up. Resident #2, a female with severe cognitive impairment and multiple diagnoses including malignant neoplasm of the pancreas, pain, type 2 diabetes, and heart failure, received the incorrect medication. The Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator both emphasized the importance of verifying the resident's name and medication details to prevent such errors. The facility's policy on administering medications requires checking the label three times to ensure the right resident, medication, dosage, time, and method of administration, which was not followed in this instance.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 493 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 52 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Houston
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| East View Healthcare | 5.3 mi | — | 8 | 0 |
| Bridgecrest Rehabilitation Suites | 5.6 mi | — | 2 | 0 |
| Paradigm At Faith Memorial | 6 mi | — | 8 | 0 |
| Afton Oaks Nursing And Rehabilitation Center | 6.5 mi | — | 12 | 7 |
| Harmony Care At Golfcrest | 6.9 mi | — | 7 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Cascades At Jacinto Rehab Lp.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.