Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
A standard survey is most likely before around August 2026
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Seven Acres Jewish Senior Care Services during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Multiple dependent, incontinent residents did not receive timely incontinence care and hygiene in accordance with their care plans and facility policy. Family members, supported by room camera footage, reported that some residents were left unchanged for approximately 14 hours overnight, despite care plans requiring incontinence checks at least every two hours. One cognitively intact resident reported that overnight staff frequently failed to check or change her several times per month. Staffing records showed a CNA assigned to the unit without clearly documented room assignments, and the CNA stated she was new and unaware of the full assignment list at the nurses’ station. The DON acknowledged that two residents were not changed during the overnight shift in question, while the facility’s incontinent care policy required monitoring rounds every two to three hours per shift.
A resident with hemiplegia, hemiparesis, and moderate cognitive impairment, care planned as dependent for transfers with a full body lift and two-person assist, was transferred by a CNA using a standing lift without a second staff member. The CNA reported being unable to find the full body sling and proceeded alone with the standing lift, despite facility expectations that two staff assist with all mechanical lifts. During the bed-to-chair transfer, the resident was lowered to the floor, later reported shoulder and knee pain, and was evaluated at a hospital, where no acute injuries were found.
Two residents experienced lapses in safety and supervision: one was injured when a CNA used a standing lift instead of the required Hoyer lift for transfer, resulting in lumbar fractures, while another resident with severe cognitive impairment was found unsupervised in the facility's parking lot after leaving the building in a wheelchair. In both cases, staff did not follow established care plans or supervision protocols, leading to actual harm and increased risk.
Failure to Provide Timely Incontinence Care and Hygiene for Multiple Dependent Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to provide necessary assistance with activities of daily living, specifically incontinence care and related hygiene, to multiple dependent residents during the overnight shift. Several residents were care planned to be checked for incontinence at least every two hours, yet family reports and video evidence indicated that incontinent care was not provided for extended periods. Resident #2, a female with dysphagia following a stroke, was documented as always urinary incontinent and dependent for toileting hygiene, with a care plan directing checks for incontinence at least every two hours. Her family member reported that on one occasion there were 14 hours during which she was not changed, from approximately 9 p.m. one night until the following day, and stated that this was part of an ongoing issue with overnight staff not checking and changing residents. Resident #3, a female with dementia but intact cognition per BIMS, was also documented as always urinary incontinent and dependent for toileting hygiene, with a care plan requiring checks for incontinence at least every two hours. Although observations during the survey found her clean, dressed, and without foul odors, she stated that her care was terrible and that there was not enough help. She reported that staff on the second and third shifts would shift responsibility to each other and that she had problems with the overnight shift not checking or changing her. She indicated that the overnight shift failed to check on her about three to four times a month, depending on which staff were working. Resident #4 and Resident #5, both females with dementia and always urinary incontinent, were also dependent for toileting hygiene and had care plans directing checks for incontinence at least every two hours. For Resident #4, a grievance from a family member alleged that she was not provided incontinent care on the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift, and the family member reported that camera footage showed she was not changed for 14 hours and 37 minutes between a diaper change at 10:04 p.m. and the next change the following day. For Resident #5, a grievance and family interview indicated that she was put to bed in the evening and not checked or changed throughout the night, with camera footage and family notes indicating a gap of nearly 14 hours or more between diaper changes. Video review provided by a family member showed staff presence in the shared room at 10:04 p.m. and then not again until midday the next day, with no documented incontinence care during the overnight hours. The facility’s own incontinent care policy required monitoring by rounds every two to three hours per shift, which was not followed in these instances. Staff interviews further described the circumstances around these events. The daily staffing sheet for the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift listed CNA B on the unit with these residents, but did not specify room assignments. CNA B stated she was new, received a written list of residents from another CNA, and was not aware of an assignment list at the nurses’ station that included additional residents. She reported that she provided care and vital signs to the residents she believed were assigned to her and denied neglecting any residents. Other CNAs working day shifts reported that residents were generally clean when they arrived and that night shift staff typically began changing residents around 5–6 a.m., and they denied current concerns about neglect. The DON acknowledged awareness that Resident #4 and Resident #5 were not changed on the night in question and described that CNA B had not looked at the assignment list at the nurses’ station. The facility’s incontinent care policy, last reviewed 6/6/25, specified that incontinent monitoring would be conducted by rounds every two to three hours per shift, which contrasted with the extended periods without incontinence care reported and documented for these residents.
Improper Mechanical Lift Use and Inadequate Assistance During Transfer
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure a resident’s environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible and to provide adequate supervision and use of appropriate transfer equipment during a mechanical lift transfer. A female resident with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction affecting the right dominant side, and with moderate cognitive impairment (BIMS score of 8), was care planned as dependent for transfers and required use of a full body lift with two-person assistance. The resident’s care plan specified assistance with transferring using a full body lift with two staff, but the physician’s orders did not contain specific transfer or mechanical lift instructions. On the date of the incident, CNA A attempted to transfer the resident without following the care plan. CNA A reported that when a full body sling could not be found in the resident’s room, they used a standing lift instead. CNA A also stated that no one was helping with the standing lift because other staff were busy and that, although two people were usually used when not busy, on this occasion the transfer was performed alone. This was CNA A’s first time caring for the resident, and CNA A stated they did not know the resident was not supposed to use the standing lift and that they sometimes used a standing lift if full body lifts were busy. During the transfer from bed to chair using the standing lift, CNA A stated the resident chose to sit on the floor and was slowly lowered to the floor. The DON reported that the aide had to lower the resident to the floor during the transfer and then notified the charge nurse. The resident was assessed by nursing staff at the time and initially denied pain, with no injuries noted on head-to-toe assessment. Later, the resident complained of right shoulder and bilateral knee pain and was evaluated at the hospital, where imaging studies showed no acute intracranial abnormality and no fractures, and subsequent notes documented intact skin and no new orders. The unit manager stated that there were always supposed to be two people when transferring residents with either a standing or full body lift, and the facility’s transfer policy required use of the correct lift and two-person assistance for all lift transfers.
Failure to Prevent Accidents and Provide Adequate Supervision
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an environment free from accident hazards and did not provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents for two residents. In one case, a resident with severe cognitive impairment, limited mobility, and a history of lumbar compression fractures was transferred using a mechanical standing lift by a CNA, despite the resident's care plan specifying the use of a full body lift (Hoyer lift) and requiring a two-person assist. The CNA operated the standing lift alone, and during the transfer, the resident's foot slipped, causing her to fall to her knees and sustain additional compression fractures to her lumbar vertebrae. Multiple staff interviews confirmed that the standing lift was used at the request of the resident's family member, contrary to the care plan and physical therapy recommendations, and that some staff had previously used the standing lift for this resident due to family requests. In another incident, a resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of dementia, acute kidney failure, and syncope was found unsupervised in the facility's parking lot in her wheelchair. The resident was not considered high risk for elopement according to her most recent assessment and had not previously exhibited exit-seeking behavior. Security camera footage showed the resident leaving the facility by following a family member out the door, remaining outside for several minutes before being returned to the facility by another family member. Staff interviews indicated that the resident was confused and forgetful, and that the doors were typically monitored by security, but it was unclear how the resident was able to exit the building without being noticed. Both incidents demonstrate failures in following established care plans and supervision protocols. In the first case, staff did not adhere to the prescribed transfer method and number of assisting personnel, and in the second, the facility did not ensure adequate monitoring to prevent a resident with cognitive impairment from leaving the premises unsupervised. These failures resulted in actual harm in the form of injury for one resident and placed both residents at risk for further harm.
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 693 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 67 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| University Place Nursing Center | 1.4 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Houston Transitional Care | 1.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Paradigm At Westbury | 2.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 18 | 1 |
| Clarewood House Extended Care Center | 2.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
| Sharpville Residence And Rehabilitation Center | 2.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Seven Acres Jewish Senior Care Services.
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 July 2026) and official state health department websites.