How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Park Manor of Quail Valley
2350 Fm 1092, Missouri City, TX 77459 (opens Google Maps) · Fort Bend County · (281) 499-9333· 125 certified beds · avg 100 residents/day · certified since Nov 2, 2005 · 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: HMG HEALTHCARE (31 facilities, chain avg rating 3.1★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 24, 2025
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Jun 24, 2025
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.23
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · 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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, pattern · Jun 24, 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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, pattern · Jun 24, 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 (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: Jun 25, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 24 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. F-0550
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. F-0558
View all 24 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
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 24, 2025 | ▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, pattern | 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 |
| Jun 24, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550 |
| Jun 24, 2025 | 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. · F-0558 |
| Jun 24, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 24, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Jun 24, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 24, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 24, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| May 22, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| May 22, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint · F-0602 |
| May 2, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint · F-0583 |
| May 2, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0640 |
| May 2, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · from a complaint · F-0641 |
| May 2, 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| May 2, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · from a complaint · F-0690 |
| May 2, 2024 | 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 |
| May 2, 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. · F-0761 |
| May 2, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Feb 2, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0755 |
| Feb 2, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · from a complaint · F-0760 |
| Feb 2, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 2, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint · F-0602 |
| Feb 16, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Feb 16, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (8 → 8).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 1
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 2 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 12 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 10 | 1 | 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.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityTexas averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.23
Texas average: 3.46
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.24
Texas average: 0.44
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.88
Texas average: 3.04
U.S. average: 3.50
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) | 3.23 | 3.46 | 3.95 | bottom 43% in Texas; bottom 23% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.24 | 0.44 | 0.69 | bottom 14% in Texas; bottom 4% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.88 | 3.04 | 3.50 | bottom 46% in Texas; bottom 25% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.19 | 0.34 | 0.48 | bottom 20% in Texas; bottom 11% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 34.9 | 55.3 | 45.8 | top 11% in Texas; top 24% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 50.0 | 54.6 | 42.9 | top 41% in Texas; bottom 39% 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 3.33, RN 0.24, weekend 2.96.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.33 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Park Manor of Quail Valley. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
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.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
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 - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cibc Bank USA | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 04/01/2018 |
| Forvis Mazars LLP | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 04/01/2018 |
| Sabra Health Care Reit INC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 04/01/2018 |
| Balsamo, Krystal | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/13/2024 |
| Balsamo, Krystal | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/13/2024 |
| Culp, Roland | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2012 |
| Culp, Roland | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2012 |
| Daspit, Laurence | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2012 |
| Daspit, Laurence | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2012 |
| Dohn, William | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/27/2019 |
| Dohn, William | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/27/2019 |
| HMG Park Manor of Quail Valley, L.L.C. | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/31/2017 |
| Joy, Susan | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/31/2012 |
| Joy, Susan | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/31/2012 |
| Lege, Rodney | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/18/2020 |
| Lege, Rodney | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/18/2020 |
| Murrell, Edward | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2018 |
| Pico, Ana | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2012 |
| Pico, Ana | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2012 |
| Prince, Derek | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2012 |
Showing 20 of 33 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 13 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain HMG Healthcare — 31 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.
- Park Manor of South Belt — Houston, TX · overall 4/5
- Park Manor of the Woodlands — The Woodlands, TX · overall 4/5
- Park Manor of Tomball — Tomball, TX · overall 2/5
- Park Manor of Westchase — Houston, TX · overall 2/5
- Pecan Bayou Nursing and Rehabilitation — Brownwood, TX · overall 5/5
- Red Oak Health and Rehabilitation Center — Red Oak, TX · overall 3/5
- Silver Spring — Abilene, TX · overall 1/5
- Stallings Court Nursing and Rehabilitation — Nacogdoches, TX · overall 5/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 30 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "How do you care for residents with incontinence or catheters, and what do you do to prevent urinary tract infections?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Texas midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 35% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 33 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 57 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Windsor Quail Valley Post-Acute Healthcare | 1.2 mi | Missouri City, TX | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Chelsea Gardens | 1.4 mi | Missouri City, TX | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Paradigm at First Colony | 1.4 mi | Missouri City, TX | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Ignite Medical Resort Sugar Land, LLC | 4.8 mi | Sugar Land, TX | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Sugar Land Health Care Center | 4.9 mi | Sugar Land, TX | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Crescent | 5.1 mi | Sugar Land, TX | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Focused Care at Westwood | 6.7 mi | Houston, TX | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Houston Transitional Care | 7.2 mi | Houston, TX | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| West Houston Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 7.3 mi | Houston, TX | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Paradigm at Westbury | 7.5 mi | Houston, TX | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Seven Acres Jewish Senior Care Services | 7.5 mi | Houston, TX | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Focused Care at Beechnut | 7.6 mi | Houston, TX | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Fort Bend, TX — 15 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Richmond Health Care Center — Richmond, TX · overall 4/5
- Rosenberg Health & Rehabilitation Center — Rosenberg, TX · overall 1/5
- S.P.J.S.T. Rest Home No 2 — Needville, TX · overall 5/5
- Cambridge Health and Rehabilitation Center — Richmond, TX · overall 3/5
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 676073.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).