224 W Pleasant Run Rd, Cedar Hill, TX 75104 (opens Google Maps) · Dallas County · (972) 291-5977· 125 certified beds · avg 86 residents/day · certified since Aug 31, 2006 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: CANTEX CONTINUING CARE (37 facilities, chain avg rating 3.1★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · how star ratings work →
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 quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, pattern · Feb 21, 2025 · 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 (K): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Sep 25, 2024 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, pattern · Feb 21, 2025 · F-0607 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection.
Why it matters: Without working prevention policies, mistreatment is more likely to happen and less likely to be caught.
Severity (K): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Sep 25, 2024 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 20, 2024 · 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 (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Oct 18, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 21 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint F-0607
The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint F-0609
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 14, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint · F-0607 |
| Jun 14, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Jun 14, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Apr 24, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Apr 24, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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 · F-0812 |
| Apr 24, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760 |
| Feb 21, 2025 | ▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, pattern | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Feb 21, 2025 | ▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, pattern | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint · F-0607 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0558 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0761 |
| Sep 20, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Sep 20, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Mar 21, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · F-0640 |
| Mar 21, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Mar 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Mar 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · F-0610 |
| Mar 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0656 |
| Jan 13, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Jan 13, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0880 |
| Jan 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Jan 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0761 |
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 3).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 4 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 9 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 8 | 2 | K ▲ |
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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $16,799.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 21, 2025 | Fine | $16,799 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Texas avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.16 | 3.46 | 3.95 | bottom 35% in Texas; bottom 20% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.47 | 0.44 | 0.69 | top 31% in Texas; bottom 33% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.87 | 3.04 | 3.50 | bottom 46% in Texas; bottom 24% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.47 | 0.34 | 0.48 | top 16% in Texas; top 37% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 58.5 | 55.3 | 45.8 | bottom 36% in Texas; bottom 19% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 40.0 | 54.6 | 42.9 | top 30% in Texas; top 46% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — 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 3.40, RN 0.50, weekend 3.09.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.40 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Crestview Court. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dallas County Hospital District | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 02/15/2015 |
| Castaneda, Edmundo | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/10/2022 |
| Cerise, Frederick | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/24/2014 |
| Clemons, Shakarra | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/16/2024 |
| Clemons, Shakarra | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/16/2024 |
| FM 1382 Health Care Center LTD Co | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/15/2015 |
| FM 1382 Health Care Center LTD Co | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/04/2025 |
| Hines, Terrance | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/05/2024 |
All 8 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Cantex Continuing Care — 37 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 36 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cedar Hill Healthcare Center | 1.2 mi | Cedar Hill, TX | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Laurenwood Nursing and Rehabilitation | 4.4 mi | Duncanville, TX | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Duncanville Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center | 4.5 mi | Duncanville, TX | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Methodist Transitional Care Center-Desoto LLC | 4.6 mi | Desoto, TX | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Williamsburg Village Healthcare Campus | 4.7 mi | Desoto, TX | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | SFF |
| The Lennwood Nursing and Rehabilitation | 5.1 mi | Dallas, TX | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Desoto Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 5.2 mi | Desoto, TX | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Five Points Nursing and Rehabilitation | 5.4 mi | Desoto, TX | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Park Village Healthcare and Rehabilitation | 5.7 mi | Desoto, TX | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| The Villa at Mountain View | 7.8 mi | Dallas, TX | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Windsor Gardens | 7.9 mi | Lancaster, TX | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Skyline Nursing Center | 8.4 mi | Dallas, TX | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Dallas, TX — 81 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 676112.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details