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 Granbury Care Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with multiple comorbidities, including DM, peripheral vascular disease, a right BKA, a stage 4 pressure ulcer, and a PICC line for IV therapy, was admitted and had detailed nursing notes and a comprehensive care plan initiated, but the admission MDS assessment was not completed within the required 14-day timeframe and did not trigger any CAAs. The facility’s Resident Matrix did not reflect the resident’s IV therapy because it relied on the incomplete MDS. The MDS nurse acknowledged being behind on assessments, and leadership confirmed that MDS coordinators were responsible for timely comprehensive assessments per facility policy, but there was no active monitoring process in place to ensure completion.
A resident with type 2 DM and multiple comorbidities had a physician order for Lantus 10 units SQ daily with instructions to hold the dose if blood glucose was less than 120. Over a two‑month period, several LVNs and the ADON documented administering Lantus despite blood glucose readings below the ordered hold parameter, with values in the 80s to high teens. Staff confirmed that check marks on the MAR indicated the insulin was given, and interviews with an LVN, the DON, and the physician established that the order required holding insulin when blood glucose was below the specified threshold and that nurses were expected to follow updated orders.
A resident with full code status and under hospice care was not provided CPR by an LVN when found unresponsive, despite clear physician orders and care plan documentation. The LVN, distracted by a personal emergency and mistakenly assuming hospice patients had DNR orders, failed to initiate CPR or contact EMS, and instead directed post-mortem care. This action was inconsistent with facility policy and the resident's documented wishes.
A deficiency was cited when a resident's care plan did not address all identified needs and failed to include measurable timetables or specific actions, as observed in the resident's records and care documentation.
The facility did not complete the care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment, and the care plan was not prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals as required.
The facility did not document weekly skin assessments for three residents at risk for pressure ulcers, including one with stage 4 wounds and others requiring extensive assistance, despite staff performing skin checks and completing shower sheets. Nursing staff cited changes in the electronic medical record system and competing duties as reasons for missed documentation, though assessments were reportedly performed.
Two residents with cognitive and behavioral health issues were left unsupervised while waiting for a scheduled smoke break, leading to an altercation between them. Staff were frequently late to supervise smoke breaks, especially on weekends, and the posted schedule was not consistently followed. The lack of timely supervision resulted in resident agitation and physical contact, as confirmed by interviews, observations, and record reviews.
A CNA failed to follow proper infection control practices during incontinence care for a resident with Alzheimer's disease, not changing gloves or performing hand hygiene after handling a soiled brief. The CNA acknowledged the mistake, despite recent infection control training. The facility's policy requires hand hygiene and glove changes, which were not followed.
The facility failed to obtain written consent for antipsychotic medications for two residents, leading to a deficiency. One resident with moderate cognitive impairment was given Ziprasidone without a signed consent form, while another with severe cognitive impairment received Seroquel without consent documentation. The DON acknowledged the oversight, attributing it to staff turnover and lack of monitoring. Facility policy requires written consent before administering psychotropic drugs, which was not adhered to in these cases.
A facility failed to refer a resident for a PASRR screening despite the resident's significant history of mental illness, including Bipolar disorder, anxiety, and PTSD. The resident was admitted with a negative PL1, and the necessary re-evaluation was not conducted until an internal audit revealed the oversight. Staff interviews indicated a lack of familiarity with required procedures and forms, and the facility's policy did not adequately address the steps needed for such cases.
The facility failed to properly label and store medications, including expired drugs on a medication cart and missing pharmacy labels on insulin pens for two residents with diabetes. Additionally, controlled substances lacked count sheets in a medication room, risking undetected shortages. Staff interviews revealed lapses in protocol adherence, and pharmacy representatives emphasized the importance of proper labeling and disposal.
The facility failed to provide food and drink at a safe and appetizing temperature, affecting several residents. Concerns were raised about cold, flavorless food, and lack of condiments. A test tray confirmed food temperatures were below acceptable levels, contrary to the facility's policy.
The facility failed to maintain food safety and hygiene standards in the kitchen, with staff not wearing effective hair restraints and neglecting proper hand hygiene. Observations included staff handling food and utensils without gloves, not washing hands between tasks, and handling silverware improperly. Interviews revealed a lack of adherence to infection control policies, with staff acknowledging their lapses and the potential for cross-contamination.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions did not have a comprehensive care plan addressing his edema and refusal of care. Despite physician orders for compression stockings and leg elevation, these were not included in the care plan. The Interim DON cited being new to the role as a reason for the oversight.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions had several unstageable pressure areas and a deep tissue pressure injury that were not present upon admission. An LVN inaccurately documented the resident's skin as intact, failing to adhere to the facility's policy for complete and accurate documentation. The RN was unaware of the reason for the inaccurate documentation, and the administrator stressed the importance of accurate reporting to prevent worsening conditions.
A resident with severe cognitive impairments was transported to a hospital via ambulance due to a change in condition, but the facility failed to notify the resident's POA and family promptly. The responsible nurse did not follow protocol, resulting in the family being informed by the hospital hours later, missing the opportunity to be with the resident during a critical time. Interviews with staff highlighted the importance of immediate family notification for resident comfort and advocacy.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment was transported to the hospital due to a change in condition, but the responsible party was not notified as documented. RN C falsely recorded that the family was informed, which was later admitted. The facility's policy on accurate documentation was not followed, leading to potential miscommunication and anxiety for the resident and family.
The facility failed to maintain functional call light systems for two residents with cognitive impairments, compromising their ability to alert staff for assistance. Observations showed that the call light strings were too short to be reached by residents, and staff were unaware of the issue until it was reported.
A CNA improperly transferred a resident using a Hoyer Lift without the required two-person assistance, leading to the resident hitting his head. Despite being trained, the CNA proceeded alone due to the absence of other aides and the resident's insistence on being transferred quickly. The facility's policies and the resident's care plan specified the need for two-person assistance.
Failure to Complete Timely Comprehensive Admission MDS Assessment
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to complete a comprehensive admission MDS assessment within 14 days of admission for one resident. Record review showed that this resident, a male with multiple diagnoses including a non-pressure chronic ulcer of the left heel, DM type 2, hyperlipidemia, insomnia, cellulitis of the left lower limb, peripheral vascular disease, a right below-knee amputation, and hypothyroidism, was admitted on a specified date. His admission MDS assessment, dated later in the month, showed no evidence that it was completed and no Care Area Assessments (CAAs) were triggered, despite the facility’s policy requiring a comprehensive assessment within 14 days of admission. Nursing documentation from the admission date described the resident as having a PICC line in the right upper arm, bowel and bladder incontinence, a right below-knee amputation, requiring two-person assistance with bed mobility and toileting, a mechanical lift for transfers, one-person assistance with dressing, hygiene, and bathing, supervision with eating and drinking, and the use of upper and lower dentures. The care plan initiated on the admission date included care areas and interventions for evidence-based practice, peripheral vascular disease, DM, incontinence, osteomyelitis, IV access, ADL self-care deficit, oral/dental health problems, and pressure ulcer care. A facility Resident Matrix later listed the resident as having a stage 4 pressure ulcer and being admitted on the same date, but did not reflect that he was receiving IV therapy, and there was no evidence in that document that he was receiving medication for diabetes, had an infection, or was on IV therapy. During observations and interviews, the resident was seen in bed with an IV pole, an IV access site in the right upper arm with an intact dressing, and a wound vac on the left heel with an intact dressing. He reported receiving IV medication for infection and care for his IV access and wound vac. The DON stated that the resident was on IV therapy and that the Matrix did not list IV therapy because it pulled from the MDS, which had not triggered IV therapy due to the incomplete assessment. The MDS Coordinator responsible for the admission assessment acknowledged that it had not been completed because she was behind on assessments and stated that the admission MDS should have been completed by a specific date. Facility leadership interviews confirmed that MDS Coordinators were responsible for completing comprehensive assessments, that there was no active monitoring process by the DON for timely completion, and that the facility policy required comprehensive assessments within 14 days of admission, with results used to develop, review, and revise the comprehensive plan of care.
Insulin Administered Contrary to Ordered Blood Glucose Parameters
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to the facility’s failure to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors, specifically involving the administration of insulin contrary to physician orders. One male resident with multiple diagnoses, including dementia, mild cognitive impairment, morbid obesity, schizophrenia, essential hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and acute kidney failure, had a physician order for Lantus SoloStar (insulin glargine) 10 units subcutaneously once daily with a clear parameter to hold the dose if blood glucose was less than 120. His comprehensive care plan for diabetes included goals to prevent signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia and to avoid complications related to diabetes, with an intervention to administer diabetes medication as ordered by the physician and monitor for side effects and effectiveness. Review of the resident’s electronic MAR for a two‑month period showed that multiple nurses, including LVNs and the ADON, documented administering Lantus even when the resident’s blood glucose readings were below the ordered hold parameter of 120. Specific documented administrations included doses given when blood glucose values ranged from 84 to 118, on numerous dates across January and February, by several different licensed nurses. Each of these administrations was recorded with a check mark on the MAR, which staff confirmed indicated that the medication had been given. In interviews, one LVN stated that if a blood sugar was below the parameter, she would be expected to hold the insulin and that there would be no reason to give insulin outside the ordered parameters, acknowledging that doing so could cause the resident’s blood sugar to “bottom out.” She also stated she believed the order previously did not have parameters and was unsure when it changed. The DON confirmed that the Lantus order included a parameter to hold if blood glucose was less than 120 and that a check mark on the MAR meant the medication was administered. The DON stated that if blood sugar was below the parameter, the insulin should be held and that nurses should be aware of order changes discussed in the 24‑hour report and IDT meetings. The attending physician stated that if the resident’s blood sugar was under the parameter, nurses should not administer the Lantus and that all nurses were expected to follow his orders. The facility’s policy on physician orders required nurses to review orders, clarify them as needed, and ensure they were accurately entered and directed to the appropriate electronic administration record.
Failure to Initiate CPR for Full Code Resident
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a licensed vocational nurse (LVN) failed to initiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for a resident who was documented as full code status. The resident, an elderly female with diagnoses including unspecified dementia and congestive heart failure, was under hospice care but had a clear physician's order and care plan indicating full code status. On the night of the incident, the resident was observed by a certified nursing assistant (CNA) to be breathing abnormally and was reported to the LVN, who assessed the resident and noted a faint pulse and imminent passing. The LVN left the bedside to verify the resident's code status, initially checking the hospice binder and then the electronic health record, which confirmed full code status. Despite confirming the resident's full code status, the LVN did not initiate CPR when the resident became unresponsive. Instead, the LVN instructed the CNA to perform post-mortem care. The LVN later stated that she was distracted by a personal emergency and mistakenly assumed that all hospice patients had do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, despite the documentation to the contrary. No vital signs were documented for the resident on the date of the incident, and emergency medical services were not contacted. The medical director confirmed that the expectation was for staff to follow physician orders, and that failure to do so could have impacted the resident's outcome. Interviews with facility staff, including the director of nursing (DON), CNA, and the administrator, confirmed that the LVN did not follow the established protocols for a resident with full code status. The facility's policies required that CPR be initiated for residents without a heartbeat or not breathing, in accordance with their advance directives and physician orders. The LVN's actions were inconsistent with these policies and the resident's documented wishes, resulting in the resident not receiving CPR prior to her death.
Incomplete Care Plan Lacking Measurable Actions
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency was identified due to the failure to develop and implement a complete care plan that addresses all of a resident's needs. The care plan lacked measurable timetables and specific actions, resulting in incomplete documentation and planning for the resident's care requirements. This omission was observed during the review of resident records and care plans, where it was noted that the care plan did not comprehensively cover all identified needs, nor did it include clear, measurable goals or interventions.
Failure to Timely Develop and Review Care Plan
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment. The care plan was not prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals as required. This deficiency was identified based on the review of facility records and documentation, which showed that the care planning process did not meet the specified timeline and team involvement requirements.
Failure to Document Weekly Skin Assessments for At-Risk Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records for three residents by not documenting weekly skin assessments as required. For one resident with severe cognitive impairment and significant physical assistance needs, there was no evidence of weekly skin inspections for multiple weeks, despite the resident being at risk for pressure ulcers and having no current skin issues. Another resident, who was cognitively intact but required substantial assistance and had stage 4 pressure ulcers, also lacked documentation of weekly skin assessments for several weeks, even though wound care orders and a care plan were in place for her pressure ulcers. A third resident, also with severe cognitive impairment and high risk for pressure ulcers, did not have weekly skin assessments documented for an extended period, despite her care plan indicating the need for extensive assistance and monitoring for potential pressure ulcer development. Observations and interviews confirmed that staff performed skin checks during care activities, and CNAs completed shower sheets, but these assessments were not consistently documented in the electronic medical record as required by facility policy. Interviews with nursing staff, the ADON, DON, and the administrator revealed that charge nurses were responsible for completing and documenting weekly skin assessments in the electronic system. However, changes in the electronic medical record system and competing duties contributed to missed documentation. The DON and ADON acknowledged the failure to document, attributing it to system updates and workflow challenges, but maintained that skin assessments were being performed even if not recorded.
Failure to Provide Timely Supervision During Smoke Breaks Resulting in Resident Altercation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the resident environment was free from accident hazards and that residents received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents, specifically during scheduled smoke breaks. Two residents with significant cognitive and behavioral diagnoses, including dementia, depression, and agitation, were left unsupervised while waiting for staff to facilitate their smoke break. During this unsupervised period, an altercation occurred between the two residents, resulting in physical contact, though no injuries were reported. The care plans for both residents indicated the need for supervision and monitoring during off-unit activities and smoke breaks. Multiple interviews and observations revealed that staff were frequently late to supervise scheduled smoke breaks, particularly on weekends. Residents reported waiting unsupervised for extended periods, sometimes up to an hour past the scheduled time. Staff interviews confirmed that the smoking schedule was not consistently followed, and there was confusion and reluctance among staff regarding who was responsible for supervising smoke breaks. The issue was known to facility leadership, and the posted schedule was not reliably adhered to, especially during weekends and evenings. Documentation and interviews indicated that the lack of timely staff supervision during smoke breaks led to resident agitation and altercations. Staff acknowledged the recurring problem of delayed smoke breaks and the resulting resident frustration, which included yelling, hitting, and property damage. The facility's failure to provide adequate supervision and maintain a safe environment during these times directly contributed to the incident between the two residents.
Infection Control Lapse During Resident Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program, as evidenced by the improper hand hygiene and glove use by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) during incontinence care for a resident. The resident, a 67-year-old female with Alzheimer's disease and incontinence, required substantial assistance with activities of daily living. During the care, the CNA did not change gloves or perform hand hygiene after handling a soiled brief and before placing a clean brief on the resident, despite her gloves being visibly soiled with urine. The CNA acknowledged the lapse in infection control practices, stating she should have changed gloves before handling the clean brief. She had received infection control training the previous month but failed to apply it during the care. The Director of Nursing (DON) was aware of some concerns regarding infection control practices and noted that the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) was responsible for infection control training and monitoring. The facility's infection control policy emphasized the importance of hand hygiene and glove changes, which were not adhered to in this instance.
Failure to Obtain Consent for Antipsychotic Medications
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that two residents, identified as Resident #50 and Resident #114, or their representatives, were informed and provided consent for the administration of antipsychotic medications. Resident #50, a male with moderate cognitive impairment, was receiving Ziprasidone for schizoaffective disorder, but there was no evidence of a signed consent form (HHSC Form 3713) by the resident or their representative. Similarly, Resident #114, a male with severe cognitive impairment, was receiving Seroquel for dementia and insomnia, yet there was no signed consent form on record. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that the antipsychotic consent forms should have been signed before the medications were administered. The DON stated that the oversight was due to staff turnover and lack of monitoring, which she was responsible for during weekly team meetings. The absence of signed consent forms meant that residents and their representatives might not have been aware of the medications being administered and their potential side effects. The facility's policy on psychotropic drugs requires written consent from the resident or their representative before administering new psychotropic medications. The policy explicitly states that verbal consent is not acceptable, and nursing facility staff cannot sign on behalf of the resident. The report highlights that the prescriber or their designee must complete the relevant section of the consent form, and the resident or their legally authorized representative must sign it, as per the Texas Health and Human Services Commission guidelines.
Failure to Refer Resident for PASRR Screening
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to refer a resident for a PASRR screening and evaluation, which is required for individuals with newly evident mental disorders or related conditions. This deficiency involved a resident who was admitted with a negative PL1, indicating no previous history of mental illness. However, upon admission, the resident had a significant past history of depression, anxiety, and PTSD, which was not initially recognized or acted upon by the facility. The resident's medical records revealed a primary diagnosis of Bipolar disorder, along with other diagnoses such as Generalized Anxiety Disorder and PTSD, which were identified after admission. Despite these diagnoses, the facility did not refer the resident for a PASRR re-evaluation, which is necessary to ensure that residents receive adequate services or care related to mental illnesses. The MDS Coordinator later acknowledged the oversight and submitted the necessary documentation for a new PASRR evaluation, but this was done only after an internal audit highlighted the issue. Interviews with facility staff, including the MDS Coordinator and the Area Director of Operations, revealed a lack of familiarity with the required procedures and forms, such as Form 1012, which should have been completed and processed for the resident. The facility's policy on PASRR specialized services did not address the necessary steps to take when a resident with a negative PL1 is later diagnosed with a psychiatric condition, contributing to the oversight.
Medication Labeling and Storage Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper labeling and storage of drugs and biologicals, as observed in two medication carts and one medication room. Specifically, expired medications were not disposed of from the Hall A-D nurse medication cart, and pharmacy labels were missing on insulin flex pens from the Hall B nurse medication cart. Additionally, the facility did not maintain medication count sheets for controlled substances in the Hall G-H medication room, which could lead to undetected shortages of medication. Resident #2, a male with type 2 diabetes, had an insulin flex pen without a pharmacy label, only marked with the resident's last name and open date. Similarly, Resident #111, a female with type 2 diabetes, had an insulin flex pen without prescribed dose information. These labeling deficiencies were noted during observations, and interviews with staff revealed a lack of awareness and adherence to labeling protocols. The facility's Director of Nursing (DON) and other staff members acknowledged the absence of count sheets for controlled substances and the presence of expired medications. The DON confirmed that count sheets were required for controlled medications and that expired medications should be removed from carts. Interviews with pharmacy representatives highlighted the expectation for proper labeling and disposal of medications, emphasizing the potential for medication misappropriation and reduced therapeutic effects due to these deficiencies.
Deficiency in Food Temperature and Quality
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for four residents and one kitchen. Residents expressed concerns about the food being cold, lacking flavor, and having poor texture. Specifically, Resident #120 reported that breakfast was usually cold and the food overall was not very good, although lunch on the day of the visit was better but still cold. Resident #376 mentioned that the food was inconsistent, often cold, and lacked condiments, which was a recurring topic at monthly council meetings. Resident #8 also noted that cold food was a frequent issue discussed at resident council meetings, attributing it to delays in tray distribution. During an observation, a test tray was prepared and served, revealing that the food temperatures were below acceptable levels, with spinach at 117.5°F, hamburger steak with cheese at 100.2°F, and mashed potatoes at 117.1°F. The Dietary Manager and surveyors sampled the food and confirmed it was cold and did not meet expectations. The facility's policy on Daily Food Temperature Control, dated 2012, stated that food should be served within acceptable temperature ranges, which was not adhered to in this instance.
Food Safety and Hygiene Deficiencies in Kitchen Operations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to professional standards for food service safety, as observed in the kitchen. Staff members did not wear effective hair restraints, which resulted in hair hanging out of their nets. This was observed with multiple dietary aides, whose hair was not fully contained, potentially leading to contamination of food and utensils. The facility's policy required clean hair to be totally covered with an effective hair restraint, which was not followed. Additionally, staff did not practice appropriate hand hygiene during meal preparation. One staff member, identified as [NAME] G, was observed cutting a cake without gloves, touching the cake with her bare hands, and handling various items without washing her hands in between tasks. Another staff member, Dietary Aide H, was seen wearing gloves while performing multiple tasks, including handling trash, without changing gloves or washing hands, which could lead to cross-contamination. Dietary Aide I was observed handling silverware by the eating end and touching her face without washing her hands afterward. Interviews with the staff revealed a lack of awareness and adherence to the facility's infection control policies. [NAME] G admitted to wearing acrylic nails, which was not addressed in the facility's policy, and acknowledged not following proper hand hygiene. Dietary Aide H and I also recognized their failures in maintaining hygiene standards. The Dietary Manager and Supervisor, both relatively new to the facility, acknowledged these lapses and the potential for cross-contamination, indicating a need for better enforcement of existing policies.
Failure to Update Comprehensive Care Plan for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for a resident, which included measurable objectives and timeframes to address the resident's medical, nursing, and psychosocial needs. Specifically, the care plan did not address the resident's edema in the lower extremities and his refusal to comply with care instructions. This oversight was identified during a review of the resident's records, which showed that despite having physician orders for knee-high compression stockings and leg elevation to manage edema, these were not incorporated into the care plan. The resident, a male with severe cognitive impairment, had diagnoses including Down syndrome, peripheral vascular disease, and aortic valve insufficiency. Despite documented orders and observations of significant edema, the care plan was not updated to reflect these needs. The Interim DON acknowledged the omission, attributing it to her being new to the role and still learning the system. The facility's policy mandates that care plans should include all identified needs, but this was not adhered to in this case.
Inaccurate Skin Assessment Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the medical record for a resident was complete and accurately documented, specifically regarding skin assessments. The resident, a male with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions including Down syndrome, peripheral vascular disease, and aortic valve insufficiency, was found to have several unstageable pressure areas and a deep tissue pressure injury that were not present upon admission. Despite these conditions, a weekly skin assessment completed by an LVN inaccurately documented the resident's skin as intact. Interviews revealed that the RN was unaware of why the LVN did not document the assessment accurately, suggesting a possible lack of knowledge on how to fill out the form properly. The facility's administrator emphasized the importance of accurate documentation and reporting of new skin concerns to prevent worsening conditions. The facility's policy mandates complete and accurate documentation for each resident, which was not adhered to in this case.
Failure to Notify Family of Resident's Emergency Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to immediately inform a resident's power of attorney (POA) and resident representative when there was a significant change in the resident's condition. This deficiency involved a resident who had a change in condition that required transportation via ambulance to a hospital. The resident, who had severe cognitive impairments and was rarely understood, was not accompanied by family members during this critical time due to the facility's failure to notify them promptly. The incident occurred when the resident experienced a change in condition that necessitated emergency medical services. Despite the urgency, the responsible nurse, RN C, did not contact the resident's POA or family members immediately after the resident was transported to the hospital. The POA was only informed of the situation by a hospital employee several hours later, which resulted in the family losing valuable time that could have been spent with the resident during a distressing period. Interviews with facility staff, including the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator, revealed that the nurse failed to adhere to the expected protocol of notifying the family, physician, and relevant administrative staff. The DON and other staff members expressed that the nurse's actions did not meet the facility's expectations, emphasizing the importance of family presence during emergencies for the resident's comfort and advocacy. The failure to notify the family promptly was identified as a deficiency, as it deprived the resident of familial support during a critical time.
Failure to Notify Resident's Representative and Inaccurate Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain accurate and complete medical records for a resident, leading to a deficiency in documentation practices. The incident involved a resident with severe cognitive impairment and multiple medical conditions, including dementia, hypothyroidism, depression, and hypertension. The resident experienced a change in condition and was transported to the hospital via ambulance. However, the responsible party was not notified of this change, contrary to what was documented in the resident's medical records. The documentation by RN C inaccurately stated that the resident's family and other relevant parties were notified of the resident's transfer to the hospital. This false documentation was later admitted by RN C, who acknowledged that she had not contacted the resident's power of attorney (POA) or family. The discrepancy in the records was discovered after the resident's POA reported not being informed about the resident's condition change and hospital transfer. Interviews with facility staff, including the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator, revealed that they were unaware of the failure to notify the resident's POA until the following day. The facility's policy required complete and accurate documentation, which was not adhered to in this case. The inaccurate documentation could lead to miscommunication and anxiety for the resident and their family.
Deficiency in Call Light Accessibility for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the call light systems in the rooms of two residents were in good working order, which is necessary for providing adequate supervision and assistance to prevent accidents. Resident #3, a female with severe cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's, and Resident #7, a female with cognitive impairment and dementia, were both affected by this deficiency. The care plans for both residents emphasized the importance of having the call light within reach to ensure a safe environment and to mitigate the risk of falls due to their cognitive impairments. Observations revealed that the call light system in Resident #7's room was not within reach, with the string being only 8 inches long, making it inaccessible for residents sitting or lying in bed. Resident #7 was unaware of the call light system and had never used it. Interviews with staff, including a CNA and the Administrator, indicated a lack of awareness regarding the non-functional call light system. The CNA mentioned that call lights were not frequently used in the secure unit, and the Administrator was unaware of the issue until it was brought to her attention, at which point she repaired the system.
Improper Hoyer Lift Transfer by CNA
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a safe environment free from accident hazards and provide adequate supervision for a resident requiring assistance with transfers. A certified nursing assistant (CNA) improperly transferred a resident using a Hoyer Lift without the required two-person assistance, as specified in the resident's care plan and physician's orders. The resident, who had a history of muscle weakness, lack of coordination, and repeated falls, reported hitting his head during the transfer, resulting in a bump but no visible injuries upon assessment. Interviews revealed that the CNA was aware of the two-person requirement but proceeded alone due to the absence of other aides and the resident's insistence on being transferred quickly. The facility's policies and the manufacturer's guidelines for the Hoyer Lift also indicated the necessity of two-person assistance for safe operation. Despite the CNA's training on mechanical lifts, the incident occurred, highlighting a lapse in adherence to established safety protocols.
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 87 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 7 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 Granbury
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trinity Nursing & Rehab Of Granbury | 1.2 mi | — | 3 | 0 |
| Granbury Rehab & Nursing | 1.6 mi | — | 20 | 0 |
| Harbor Lakes Nursing And Rehabilitation Center | 1.9 mi | — | 8 | 0 |
| Glen Rose Nursing And Rehab Center | 14.2 mi | — | 10 | 0 |
| Cherokee Rose Nursing And Rehabilitation | 14.6 mi | — | 11 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Granbury Care Center.
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.