Citations in Texas
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in Texas.
Statistics for Texas (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Latest citations in Texas
Grievance Procedure Information Not Posted or Discussed: The facility failed to make grievance/complaint filing information available to 10 of 10 residents reviewed. Residents stated they did not know they could file anonymously, did not know where to get or submit a grievance form, and were unaware of their right to a written decision. Observation showed prominent postings lacked grievance instructions, and the ADM stated he was the grievance officer and that the grievance process should have been discussed in Resident Council.
Kitchen staff failed to follow food storage and sanitation standards when unlabeled, undated food items were found in the walk-in freezer and refrigerator, an uncovered garbage can was observed next to the prep table, and a DC was not wearing a hair restraint over his mustache area. Staff interviews confirmed that labeling, dating, covering the garbage can, and wearing hair restraints were expected responsibilities, and facility policies required covered, labeled, and dated refrigerated and frozen foods as well as proper personal cleanliness in food prep areas.
Improper Dumpster Waste Disposal: The dumpster area behind the kitchen had open doors on 2 dumpsters and trash left on the ground behind them, including iron bars and black trash bags. The MM stated anyone using the dumpsters was responsible for placing trash properly and closing the doors, but he had not been trained and had not seen a waste disposal policy. The ADM stated no one was assigned to monitor the issue and staff had not been trained on the task or reviewed the facility's dumpster use and waste disposal policy.
Infection Control and EBP Not Used During Wound Care Three residents with open wounds received wound care from RNs without PPE, and there was no PPE or precaution signage outside their rooms. The nurses and leadership stated the residents were not on EBP because the wounds were not infected or were considered simple dressings, even though the facility policy required gown and glove use for wound care involving any skin opening requiring a dressing and identified complex/infected wounds as EBP indications.
Incomplete DNR Forms for Two Residents: Two residents with DNR status had incomplete DNR paperwork. One resident with CKD and severe cognitive impairment had no resident signature on the DNR form, and the physician signed on the wrong line. Another resident with Alzheimer’s disease and severe cognitive impairment had the resident signature on the proxy line, but the physician signature, date, printed name, and license number were missing. The SW and ADM verified the forms were not completed correctly.
Failure to transmit completed discharge MDS: A resident with COPD, AFib, CHF, Type II DM, and HTN had a discharge MDS marked complete, but it was not submitted to CMS within the required timeframe. Record review showed no batch was created, and interviews confirmed the discharge assessment should have been transmitted within 14 days of completion.
Grievance Procedure Information Not Made Available to Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to make information on how to file a grievance or complaint available to residents for 10 of 10 confidential residents reviewed for grievances. During interviews, all 10 residents stated they did not know they could file a grievance anonymously, did not recall the grievance procedure being discussed in Resident Council, and had not observed a posting of the grievance procedure in prominent locations. The residents also stated they did not know where to obtain a grievance form, who to give it to, what happened after a grievance was filed, or that they had the right to receive a written decision once their grievance was resolved. Observation of prominent postings on 06/16/2026 at 4:25 PM showed the facility did not include instructions regarding the grievance procedure with the postings. During interview on 06/17/2026 at 10:15 AM, the ADM stated he was the grievance officer, that grievance forms were available on a shelf by the downstairs elevator and could also be obtained from any staff member, and that grievances were assigned to the appropriate department for resolution and documented on the grievance form. The ADM stated completed grievance forms were kept in a notebook for 3 plus years, that grievances were monitored in daily IDT meetings, and that he was not aware the grievance procedure was not being discussed in Resident Council. The grievance policy reviewed, last updated in January 2024, stated grievance forms would be kept in the foyer on each floor, any staff member could assist with completing the form, and completed forms would be given to social services.
Kitchen Food Storage and Sanitation Failures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards in the kitchen. During a kitchen tour, surveyors observed an uncovered garbage can next to the food prepping table, and the DC was not wearing a hair restraint to cover his mustache area. Surveyors also found food items in the walk-in freezer and walk-in refrigerator that were not labeled and did not have use-by dates. In the walk-in freezer, items that resembled scones, cookie doughs, apple scones, cinnamon rolls, and white chocolate scones were stored in clear plastic bags with no labels and no use-by dates. In the walk-in refrigerator, what resembled whipped topping was also stored in a clear plastic bag with no use-by date. The EC stated that kitchen staff were responsible for labeling and dating food items, and that staff had been in a hurry and forgot to do so. The EC also stated that the garbage can should have been covered when not in use and that the DC had removed his hair restraint and forgotten to put it back on. During interviews, the DC stated he was responsible for labeling and dating food items along with other kitchen staff, and that he had forgotten to do so. He also stated he had just gotten out of the bathroom and had forgotten to use the hair restraint. The RD, DM, and ADM each stated that kitchen staff were responsible for labeling and dating food items, that the garbage can should have been covered when not in use, and that all kitchen staff should have worn hair restraints while prepping. The facility policies reviewed stated that refrigerated and frozen foods are to be covered, labeled, and dated, that garbage cans should have lids replaced, and that food employees in preparation areas should wear hair restraints and beard restraints.
Improper Dumpster Waste Disposal
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly for 2 of 3 dumpsters, specifically dumpsters #1 and #2. During observation on 06/15/2026 at 10:01 a.m., the dumpster area behind the kitchen was found with the doors to both dumpsters open, and improperly trashed iron bars (x5) and black trash bags (x2) were observed on the ground behind the dumpsters. During interviews on 06/17/2026, the MM stated that anyone who used the dumpsters was responsible for making sure trash was placed properly and the dumpster doors were closed, and he stated he had not been trained on the task and had not seen a waste disposal policy. The ADM stated that the dumpster doors should be closed after trashing and garbage should be disposed of properly, but at that time no one was assigned to monitor the identified failures. The ADM also stated staff had not been trained on the task and had not come across the waste disposal policy. The facility policy titled, Dumpster Use and Waste Disposal Policy, stated that all waste shall be disposed of in designated dumpsters, waste should not be left on the ground or beside dumpsters, and dumpster lids and exterior doors leading to dumpster areas shall remain closed and secured when not in use.
Infection Control and Enhanced Barrier Precautions Not Used During Wound Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, comfortable, and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of disease for three residents and two nurses reviewed for infection control. During wound care observations, RN B entered a resident’s room to provide care for a stage 3 pressure ulcer on the right glute without PPE, and there was no visible PPE outside the room or signage indicating transmission-based precautions. RN A also entered two other residents’ rooms without PPE while providing wound care, and there was no visible PPE outside those rooms or signage indicating transmission-based precautions. Resident #3 was a male with diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease, prostate cancer, depression, hypertension, and peripheral vascular disease. His MDS showed severe cognitive impairment and one stage 3 pressure ulcer. His care plan and physician orders directed wound care to the right glute. During observation, RN B provided wound care without PPE. In interview, RN B stated the resident was not on enhanced barrier precautions because the wound was not infected, and she stated enhanced barrier precautions were only needed for complex wounds requiring multilayer dressings. She also stated she had been trained in enhanced barrier precautions. Resident #66 was a female with diagnoses including left femur fracture, muscle weakness, and hypertension. Her MDS showed moderate cognitive impairment and one unstageable deep tissue injury. Her care plan and physician orders directed daily wound care to the left heel. During observation, RN A provided wound care without PPE. Resident #85 was a male with diagnoses including Alzheimer’s disease, edema, diabetes, and hypertension. His MDS showed moderate cognitive impairment and risk for pressure ulcers. His care plan and physician orders directed daily wound care to bilateral lower leg wounds. During observation, RN A provided wound care without PPE. RN A stated both residents were not on enhanced barrier precautions because the wounds were not infections, and she stated she had been trained in enhanced barrier precautions. The DON, ADON, IP, and ADM all stated that the three residents were not on enhanced barrier precautions because their wounds were not infected or were simple dressings. The DON and ADON stated enhanced barrier precautions were used for residents with complex wound dressings, infections, or certain devices such as Foley catheters, PICC/CVL lines, drains, or wound vacs. The facility policy stated enhanced barrier precautions are used to reduce the spread of MDROs, are indicated for complex/infected wounds, and require signs outside the room and PPE available near or outside the room. The facility sign also stated staff must wear gloves and gown for wound care involving any skin opening requiring a dressing.
Incomplete DNR Forms for Two Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that two residents with documented DNR status had properly completed DNR forms. One resident was a male admitted with chronic kidney disease and acute cystitis with hematuria; his face sheet and physician order summary both reflected DNR status, and his MDS showed severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 6. His DNR form dated 8/06/24 did not contain the resident’s signature, and the physician signed on the line intended for the resident’s signature. The second resident was a female admitted with Alzheimer’s disease and chronic kidney disease; her face sheet and physician order summary also reflected DNR status, and her MDS showed severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 3. Her DNR form dated 09/25/25 had the resident’s signature on the line for a legal guardian, agent, or proxy, but the physician’s signature, date, printed name, and license number were missing. The social worker and administrator both verified the missing information and stated the forms were not valid if not completed correctly.
Failure to Transmit Completed Discharge MDS
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to transmit a completed discharge MDS that accurately reflected Resident #40’s status within the required timeframe. Resident #40 was an [AGE]-year-old female with diagnoses including COPD, atrial fibrillation, CHF, Type II DM, and hypertension. Her record showed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 01/30/2026. The electronic medical record MDS tab showed a Discharge Return Not Anticipated MDS with a status of complete, but the assessment history indicated the Discharge MDS had not been submitted and no batch had been created. The Discharge MDS for Resident #40 was documented as a completed assessment with A0310F coded as discharge assessment - return not anticipated, A2000 showing the discharge date, and A2300 showing the assessment reference date as 01/30/2026. During interview, the Clinical Reimbursement Coordinator stated the Discharge MDS should have been submitted to CMS and that all discharge MDSs should be transmitted within 14 days of completion, but this one had not been transmitted because the box remained checked. The ADM stated he was not aware the Discharge MDS had not been transmitted until the day of the interview and confirmed the 14-day submission timeframe.
Find your facility
Search by name to see its inspection history, citations and penalties — and how to prepare for the next survey.
Get alerted when Immediate Jeopardy citations hit in Texas — free
You're all set
Compliance trends in Texas
Data through May 2026Comparisons below measure the most recent period Jun 2025 – May 2026 against the prior period Jun 2024 – May 2025 (two equal 12-month windows). The most recent 1 months are excluded because CMS is still publishing them.
Top tags by month · last 24 months
dashed = still reportingMonthly citation counts for the 5 most-cited tags. The dashed tail is the 1-month reporting lag.
Frequency movers
Biggest change in how often each tag is cited, as a rate per 100 inspections (so it isn't skewed by survey volume): Jun 2025 – May 2026 vs the prior period Jun 2024 – May 2025. Only tags with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown.
Severity movers
Tags whose average scope/severity shifted the most: Jun 2025 – May 2026 vs the prior period Jun 2024 – May 2025. The number is the average severity on the A–L scale (A=0…L=11); the letter is the band it falls in. A rise means the same tag is being cited at a more serious level — note the average can move enough to rank here while staying within the same letter. Same 20-citation minimum applies.
Care domain movers
Citations grouped into CFR care domains — F-tags by their §483 regulatory section (CMS State Operations Manual, Appendix PP) — measured as a rate per 100 inspections: Jun 2025 – May 2026 vs the prior period Jun 2024 – May 2025. Share is the domain's portion of citations this period; avg severity is the mean scope/severity letter and immediate jeopardy the percentage cited at J–L, both over the current period. Domains with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown; the sparkline tracks the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Immediate jeopardies · this period
Citations at the most serious scope/severity — J–L, immediate jeopardy, residents placed at risk of serious harm or death — over Jun 2025 – May 2026 vs the prior period Jun 2024 – May 2025. "Surveys with an IJ" counts distinct health inspections that had at least one.
Survey activity · by month
faded/dashed = still reportingCitations each month split into complaint-driven (unscheduled, triggered by grievances) vs standard surveys — bars, left axis — with the number of inspections as a line on the right axis. Rising inspections signal more scrutiny; a rising complaint share means more off-cycle surveys. The most recent 1 months are still being reported.
Deficiency-free survey rate
Share of health surveys that found zero deficiencies — the odds of a clean survey. Jun 2025 – May 2026 vs the prior period Jun 2024 – May 2025; the most recent 1 months are still being reported (dashed).
Penalties · by month
faded = still reportingTotal civil money penalty dollars imposed on the state's facilities each month — how hard the state is enforcing. The most recent 1 months are still being reported, and penalties often lag citations by several months.
Emerging tags
Tags that weren't established last period but surged — an early warning, distinct from movers (which track already-common tags). Criteria: fewer than 20 citations in the prior period, but at least 10 this period and 2.5× their prior volume. The sparkline shows monthly counts over the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 29, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
In your survey window? See what surveyors are citing.
The Survey-Prep Report maps your facility's risk from 12 months of CMS and state citation data — what's being cited around you and what to check first. $129 one-time.
