TexasCedar Hill

Cedar Hill Healthcare Center

230 S Clark Rd, Cedar Hill, TX 75104 · Dallas County · 110 certified beds · avg 84 residents/day · certified since Apr 1, 1992

Part of chain: SOUTHWEST LTC (10 facilities, chain avg rating 2.4★)

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
2
Serious findings on record
$22,503
Fines, last 3 years
3.35
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Aug 15, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: Jul 31, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Nov 5, 2024 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: Dec 20, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (26)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Aug 15, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Jul 2, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · from a complaint
Jul 2, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · from a complaint
Jul 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. · from a complaint
Jul 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint
Jul 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · from a complaint
Jul 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper foot care for residents. Foot care includes routine care like nail trimming and attention to foot problems, which matter greatly for older adults. · from a complaint
Jul 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint
Mar 5, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · from a complaint
Mar 5, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint
Nov 5, 2024▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Jun 26, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · from a complaint
Jun 26, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint
Jun 26, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · from a complaint
Jun 26, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time.
Jun 26, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide timely, quality laboratory tests to meet residents' needs. · from a complaint
Jun 26, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint
Jun 26, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
Jun 26, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop, carry out, or maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff members. · from a complaint
Jun 26, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it.
May 4, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
May 4, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care.
May 4, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
May 4, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes.
May 4, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
May 4, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (9 → 7).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202360E
2024101J ▲
2025101J ▲

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

2 fines totaling $22,503, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

DateTypeAmount / length
Aug 15, 2025Fine$9,113
Nov 5, 2024Fine$13,390
Nov 5, 2024Payment Denial8 days from Dec 12, 2024

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityTexas avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.353.463.95top 47% in Texas; bottom 29% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.400.440.69top 47% in Texas; bottom 22% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.143.043.50top 32% in Texas; bottom 38% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.390.340.48top 27% in Texas; top 49% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)44.355.345.8top 31% in Texas; top 48% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)40.054.642.9top 30% in Texas; top 46% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 2.95, RN 0.35, weekend 2.76. Staffing rating: 2/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Stephens Memorial Hospital DistrictOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%04/01/2017
Jamal, SyedIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2025
Jamal, SyedIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2025
Nikoi, MabelIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/06/2020
Nikoi, MabelIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2025
Speer, GenaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2025

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Crestview Court1.2 miCedar Hill, TX★★★★★4/5
Methodist Transitional Care Center-Desoto LLC4.4 miDesoto, TX★★★☆☆2/5
Park Village Healthcare and Rehabilitation5.1 miDesoto, TX★★☆☆☆1/5abuse
Desoto Nursing & Rehabilitation Center5.1 miDesoto, TX★★★☆☆3/5
Duncanville Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center5.2 miDuncanville, TX★☆☆☆☆1/5
Williamsburg Village Healthcare Campus5.3 miDesoto, TX★★☆☆☆1/5SFF
The Laurenwood Nursing and Rehabilitation5.4 miDuncanville, TX★★★★☆3/5
Five Points Nursing and Rehabilitation5.7 miDesoto, TX★★☆☆☆3/5
The Lennwood Nursing and Rehabilitation5.8 miDallas, TX★☆☆☆☆2/5
Windsor Gardens7.7 miLancaster, TX★★☆☆☆2/5
Midtowne Meadows Health & Rehab7.9 miMidlothian, TX★★★★☆5/5
Red Oak Health and Rehabilitation Center7.9 miRed Oak, TX★★★☆☆4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Cedar Hill →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 675032.