Robert Lee Care Center
307 West 8th St, Robert Lee, TX 76945 · Government - Hospital district · 70 certified beds · (325) 453-2511 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (26% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 11.7% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.5% | 3.0% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.6% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.7% | 2.4% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.4% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.6% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.7% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.5% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.3% | 13.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.3% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 83.3% | 88.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.64 | 2.17 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.45 | 2.06 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 36% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.2%CMS range 6.5–16.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 66.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.11 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 70 beds and averages 48.0 residents a day — about 69% occupied, or roughly 22 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.73 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.39 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.446 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.39 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.87 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.45 to 0.24 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 26% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-31 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet a resident's medical and nursing needs to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #31) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that addressed Resident #31's behaviors. This deficient practice could place residents in the facility at risk of not receiving the necessary care or services and having personalized plans developed to address their needs.Findings included: Record review of Resident #31's face sheet dated 12/31/25, revealed admission on [DATE] to the facility. Diagnoses included dementia with psychotic disturbance, delusions, hallucinations, and depression. Record review of Resident #31's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 2 indicating…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-31 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #3) reviewed for transfers in that: NA A and CNA B failed to safely transfer Resident #3 with a gait belt. CNA C and CNA D failed to demonstrate the skills to safely transfer the DON. These failures could place residents at risk for injuries due to not receiving the appropriate level of assistance to prevent accidents.Findings included: Review of Resident #3's admission Record, dated 12/30/25 revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Parkinson's Disease (a neurological disorder causing movement and cognitive impairment), muscle weakness, and unsteadiness on feet. Resident #3 was on hospice. Review of Resident #3's admission MDS Assessment, dated 11/25/25, revealed:Resident #3 had a BIMS score of 3 of 15 (indicating severe cognitive impairment). He showed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-31 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that nurse aides were able to demonstrate competency in skills and techniques necessary to care for residents' needs for 1 (Resident #3) of 4 residents reviewed for competent nursing staff, in that: NA A and CNA B failed to safely transfer Resident #3 with a gait belt. CNA C and CNA D failed to demonstrate the skills to safely transfer the DON using a gait belt. These failures could place residents at risk for injuries due to not receiving the appropriate level of assistance to prevent accidents.Findings included: Review of Resident #3's admission Record, dated 12/30/25 revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Parkinson's Disease (a neurological disorder causing movement and cognitive impairment), muscle weakness, and unsteadiness on feet. Resident #3 was on hospice. Review of Resident #3's admission MDS Assessment, dated 11/25/25, revealed:Resident #3 had a BIMS score of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-09-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the facility's one of one kitchen. The facility failed to ensure: Food debris was not on the floor in the freezer. Staff did not transport dishes by holding them against their body. Staff completed hand hygiene appropriately. Dishes were stored in a manner to prevent contamination. Prevention of contamination of salad bar containers by staff handling practices. Frozen meat was stored in a manner to prevent contamination in the event of thawing. These failures could affect residents who received meals prepared from the kitchen at risk for food borne illness and cross contamination. Findings included: Observation on 9/24/24 between 9:18 a.m. and 9:36 a.m. revealed: Bowls stored against the long wall of the kitchen were stored face up. The outside walk-in refrigerator had a bucket of pickles on the ground. The walk-in freezer had meat stored over vegetables and bread. The dry storage had individual…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-26 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet, attain, and/or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #24) reviewed for care plans in that: Resident #24 did not have a care plan addressing the use of her ankle splint. This failure could affect resident by placing her at risk of not receiving individualized care and services to meet her needs. The findings included: Review of Resident #24's admission Record dated 9/26/24 revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility for paralysis following a stroke affecting her dominant side. Review of Resident #24's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 9/12/24 revealed: She scored a 13 of 15 on her mental status exam (indicating she was cognitively intact); She had range of motion impairment of the upper and lower…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-26 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for quality of care. (Resident #24) The facility did not assess, obtain orders or monitor Resident #24's ankle splint. This failure could place the residents at risk of not receiving the care and services to maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings included: Review of Resident #24's admission Record dated 9/26/24 revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility for paralysis following a stroke affecting her dominant side. Review of Resident #24's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 9/12/24 revealed: She scored a 13 of 15 on her mental status exam (indicating she was cognitively intact); She had range of motion impairment of the upper and lower extremities on one side; She…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-26 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 (Resident #19) of 6 residents observed for oxygen management. The facility failed to ensure Oxygen (O2) in use signage was on Resident #19's doorway. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving appropriate respiratory care. The findings were: Record review of Resident #19 's admission record dated 09/26/2024 revealed Resident #19 was a [AGE] year-old male with an admission date to the facility of 07/19/2024. admission record revealed Resident #19 had diagnoses that included Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (progressive lung disease characterized by chronic respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation), shortness of breath, heart failure, dependence on supplemental oxygen, and muscle weakness. Record review of Resident #19 's MDS revealed the resident had a BIMS of 14 indicating the resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-08-17 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of residents, for 1 of 2 Medication Carts and 1 of 2 Treatment Carts reviewed for pharmacy services. - The facility failed to ensure the Medication Cart did not include the following expired medications: Eszopiclone 1 mg tablets, Olmesartan Medoxomil 40mg tablets, Aspirin 81mg, and Carboxymethylcellulose Sodium 0.5% lubricating eye drops. These failures could place residents at risk of receiving expired medications. Findings included: Medication Cart In an observation on 08/16/23 at 09:18AM, inventory of the Medication Cart with LVN A revealed: - one card (28 tablets) of Eszopiclone 1mg, expired 05/17/23 - one card (30 tablets) of Olmesartan Medoxomil 40mg, expired 07/23 - one bottle (29 tablets) of Aspirin 81mg, expired 02/22 - one opened box (4 sealed packages inside) of Carboxymethylcellulose Sodium Lubricating eye drops Single…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-08-17 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were labeled and stored in locked compartments , for 1 of 2 Medication Carts and 1 of 2 Treatment Carts reviewed for pharmacy services. - The facility failed to ensure the Medication Cart did not include the following medications found loose in the medication drawer: Gabapentin 100mg x 2 capsules, Namenda 10 mg x 1 tablet, Buspar 15 mg x 1 tablet and Buspar 5mg x 1 tablet. - The Treatment Cart was unlocked and had Insulin, Oral Glucose, syringes, and lancets. These failures could place residents at risk of receiving expired medications. Findings included: Medication Cart In an observation on 08/16/23 at 09:18AM, inventory of the Medication Cart with LVN A revealed: - two capsules of Gabapentin 100 mg, found loose in medication drawer - one tablet of Namenda 10 mg found loose in medication drawer - one tablet of Buspar 15 mg found loose in medication drawer - one tablet of Buspar 5 mg found loose in medication drawer Treatment Cart In an observation on 08/15/23 10:00AM, the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2024-09-26 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to post daily information that included the facility name, total number and actual hours worked by registered nurses, licensed practical or licensed vocational nurses, certified nurse aides directly responsible for resident care per shift and the resident census for 2 days (09/25/2024 to 09/26/2024) of 3 days observed for staff posting. The facility failed to post the daily staffing information for 09/25/2024 and 09/26/2024. This failure could place all residents, their families, and facility visitors at risk of not having access to information regarding staffing data and the facility census. The findings included: During an observation and record review on 09/25/2024 and 09/26/2024 at 11:50 a.m. revealed the facility's daily nursing posting located behind the nurses' station failed to indicate the actual hours worked for each direct care staffing, the facility name, the total number and actual hours worked by the staff and resident census. The posting indicated the following CMA - 2, CNA-4, LVN-1, RN-1, Admin -…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2024-09-26 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the resident status for 1 of 12 residents (Resident #3) whose MDS assessments were reviewed, in that: Resident #3's MDS assessment dated [DATE] was coded as not being PASRR positive when the resident was positive. This failure could affect residents in the facility and put them at risk of inadequate care based on inaccurate assessment. The findings were: Record review of Resident #3's admission record dated 09/26/2024 indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder and mild intellectual abilities. She was [AGE] years of age. Record review of Resident #3's PASRR level 1 screening dated 05/25/2021 indicated in part: Is there evidence or an indicator this is an individual that has a mental illness? Yes. Is there evidence or an indicator this is an individual that has an intellectual disability? Yes. Is there evidence or indicators that this is an individual that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| WEST COKE COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/10/2011 |
| BURDETT, BEVERLY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/27/2018 |
| LEWIS, BETTY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/30/2021 |
| MCCARLEY, ROMA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/26/2022 |
| STEPHENS, PATRICIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/27/2014 |
| TINKLER, NOEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 11/19/2015 |
| MCGUIRE, WESLEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/03/2025 |
| HUNT, JOHN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/16/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 675599. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-31, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.