Crestwood Health And Rehabilitation Center
1448 Houston St, Wills Point, TX 75169 · For profit - Partnership · 117 certified beds · (903) 873-5400 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- 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
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
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) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 improved from 4 to 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 | 36.0% | 15.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| 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 | 0.8% | 0.8% | 2.0% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.0% | 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 | 2.8% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 34.5% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.7% | 18.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.2% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.4% | 3.8% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 17.6% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.8% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 4.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.1% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.5% | 25.7% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.7% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.36 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.36 | 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.
45.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 55 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 60.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 20 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 1.03 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 97% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 19% 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 | 45.2%CMS range 33.1–57.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.2%CMS range 6.6–16.9 | 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 | 60.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 55.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 55.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 93.5% | 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 | 3.2% | 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 | 10.1%CMS range 6.1–17.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.95 | 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 117 beds and averages 84.6 residents a day — about 72% occupied, or roughly 32 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.29 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.47 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.95 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 3.07 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.38 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.54 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 50% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 3 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-07 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
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 Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level I assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #85) reviewed for PASRR Level I screenings.The facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the PASRR Level 1 screening for Resident #85. The PASRR 1 Level screening did not indicate a diagnosis of mental illness, although the diagnosis was present upon admission. This failure could place residents who had a mental illness at risk of not receiving a needed assessment (PASRR Evaluation), individualized care, or specialized services to meet their needs. Findings included:Record review of Resident #85's face sheet, dated 01/05/2026, indicated she was an [AGE] year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including bipolar disorder, chronic kidney disease stage 4, and frontotemporal neurocognitive disorder. Record review of Resident #85's admission MDS assessment, dated 09/1520/25,…
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 · D2026-01-07 · tag F0770 — failed to provide lab services — isolatedProvide timely, quality laboratory services/tests to meet the needs of residents.
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 laboratory services were obtained to meet the needs of 1 of 18 residents reviewed for laboratory services (Resident #9). The facility failed to obtain Resident #9's CBC (Complete Blood Count) and CMP (Comprehensive Metabolic Panel) every Monday for 4 weeks as ordered. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving timely diagnoses, treatment, and services to meet their needs.Findings included: Record review of Resident #9's undated face sheet revealed he was an [AGE] year-old male that admitted on [DATE] with a readmit date of 12/3/25. Record review of Resident #9's physician's orders dated 1/7/26 indicated he had diagnoses that included: Dependence on Renal Dialysis (life-sustaining treatment for kidney failure that artificially filters waste products and excess fluid from the blood), End Stage Renal Disease (the kidneys can no longer filter waste and fluids effectively requiring dialysis or a kidney transplant for survival),…
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 · D2026-01-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for infection control practices (Resident #60). The facility failed to ensure CNA C changed her gloves and performed hand hygiene appropriately while providing incontinent care for Resident #60. She touched Resident 60's arm, gown, and leg with her dirty gloves. This failure could place residents at risk of exposure to communicable diseases, cross-contamination, and infections. Findings included: Record review of Resident #60's undated face sheet indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female that admitted [DATE]. Record review of the physician's orders dated 1/7/26 indicated Resident #60 had diagnoses that included: Dementia (severe cognitive decline interfering with daily life),…
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 · E2024-10-16 · tag F0572 — patternGive residents a notice of rights, rules, services and charges.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were informed orally, of their rights, for 6 of 6 residents interviewed during a group meeting (Resident #13, #14, #21, #32, #49 and #53). Residents #13, #14, #21, #32, #49 and #53 were not orally informed of their rights, during their stay in the facility. This failure placed the residents at risk of a decreased quality of life, decreased awareness of their rights and decreased execution of their rights. Findings included: During an interview on 10/15/2024 at 9:00 AM, Residents #13, #14, #21, #32, #49 and #53 said, the new AD has not reviewed resident rights with them or explained any resident rights to them, since she became the AD. During record review of resident council meeting minutes, for 10/09/2024, 09/03/2024, 08/02/2024, 07/02/2024, and 06/07/2024, revealed that resident rights were not reviewed over the past five months; October, September, August, July, and June 2024. During an interview on 10/16/2024 at 3:25 PM, the AD said she became the AD after receiving her certification in March 2024. 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 · D2024-08-30 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 report to state agency emergency situations that pose a threat to resident health and safety immediately, but not later than 24 hours after the incident occurs or is suspected for 1 of 1 secured locked unit reviewed for physical environment. The facility failed to report to the State Survey Agency on 8/29/24 immediately but no later than 24 hours after becoming aware the facility's roof collapsed on the secured locked unit. This failure could place residents at risk of further potential abuse or neglect. Findings included: During observation of facility on 8/30/24 from 10:57am to 7:50pm a contract roofing company was working on the roof, the locked unit was taped off due to not in use because of the damages caused by the roof collapsing. All residents on 100 hall were relocated to the 200 hall and there was no visible bruising, skin tears or marks. Residents did not show signs of fear when interacting with staff. Record review of provider investigation report date 9/5/24 revealed: Date reported to HHSC - 8/3024…
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 · E2023-08-23 · 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 an accurate MDS was completed for 12 of 18 residents (Resident #s 7, 9, 15, 18, 24, 32, 46, 49, 50, 51, 55, and 56) reviewed for MDS assessment accuracy. The facility did not accurately code Resident #s 7, 15, 32, 46, 49, 50, and 55's MDS for BIMS score (cognitive patterns), mood score, and daily routine and activity preferences. The facility did not accurately code Resident #s 9, 18, 24, 51, and 56's MDS assessment for BIMS score (cognitive patterns) and mood score. These failures could place residents at risk for not receiving the appropriate care and services to maintain the highest level of well-being. Findings included: 1.A review of Resident #7's face sheet dated 08/23/2023 indicated Resident #7 was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, low back pain, high blood pressure, gastro-esophageal reflux disease (indigestion), fractures of first and fourth lumbar vertebrae, and muscle…
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 · E2023-08-23 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 residents unable to conduct activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, for resident (Resident #51) review for quality of life. The facility failed to provide Resident #51 with personal grooming for nail care These failures could place residents at risk for poor hygiene, dignity issues, and decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #51's admission record dated 11/2/2022 reflected Resident #51 was an [AGE] year-old male, diagnosis included full code with use of AED, Alzheimer's, unsteadiness on feet, history of falls, cognitive communication deficit, need for assistance with personal care, dysphagia, muscle weakness, attention deficit, dementia, anxiety disorder, repeated falls, hyperlipidemia (an excess of lipids or fats in your blood), migraine, hypertension,…
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 · D2023-08-23 · 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, including tracheostomy care and tracheal suctioning is provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan and the residents goals and preferences for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #24 and #42) reviewed for oxygen therapy, in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #24's oxygen rate was set at 3-4 LPM (liters per minute) CONTINUOUS and not 2 LPM. 2. The facility failed to ensure monitoring of oxygen Saturation as ordered by the physician (maintain O2 saturation above 90%) 3. The facility failed to ensure there was an order for Resident #42 to receive oxygen. These failures could place residents who received oxygen therapy at risk for respiratory distress Record Review of Resident #24's electronic face sheet for August 2023 indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including emphysema,…
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 · C2023-08-23 · 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 ensure that the daily nurse staffing was posted as required for 3 of 3 days (8/19/23, 8/20/23 and 8/21/23) reviewed for nursing services. The facility failed to update the daily staffing information posting. This failure could affect residents, their families, and facility visitors by placing them at risk of not having access to information regarding staffing data and facility census. Findings included: Record review on 08/21/23 at 08:30 a.m., revealed the daily staffing pattern was posted on the desk by the front door in a clear acrylic holder and dated 08/18/23, which did not reflect the current date. During a record review on 08/22/23 at 8:30 a.m., the required nurse staffing data was posted on the desk in the front lobby, dated 08/22/23. During an interview with the Nursing scheduler/Recruiter on 8/23/23 at 3:00 p.m., she said it was her responsibility to make sure nurse staffing is posted. She said she would call the facility and talk to the nurse in charge to make sure the posting was changed. However,…
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 · B2023-08-23 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — patternKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure the residents received mail for 5 of 5 residents reviewed for resident rights. (Residents #2, #18, #37, #57 and #61). The facility did not ensure residents received their mail promptly. This failure could place the residents at risk of not receiving mail in a timely manner and a diminished quality of life. Findings included: During a group interview on 08/22/2023 at 9:00 AM, Residents #18, #37 and #57 said the mail was delivered on Saturday, but they only received mail Monday through Friday. Residents #2 and # 61 nodded in agreement with the other residents' statement. During an interview on 08/23/2023 at 10:25 AM, the receptionist said she worked Monday through Friday. She said she does work the weekend when scheduled. She said when she worked the weekend and received the mail, she placed it at the reception desk for Monday. She said when she came in on Monday, she would sort the weekend mail, she gave the business office the business mail and she delivered the resident mail to the residents who received mail over…
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.
- 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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to THE ENSIGN GROUP — 342 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 2.8 | +2.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 4.4 | -2.4 vs chain |
The other 341 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 341; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EASTLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/01/2019 |
| THE ENSIGN GROUP INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/01/2019 |
| JENSEN, KEVIN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2024 |
| ROJAS, JORGE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2019 |
| BURNAM, SOON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2019 |
| KEETCH, CHAD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/01/2011 |
| TAYLOR, STEPHEN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2025 |
| APPALOOSA HEALTHCARE, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/11/2025 |
| BLUEBIRD CREEK HEALTH HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2019 |
| ENSIGN SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/19/2019 |
| STANDARD BEARER HEALTHCARE OP, LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
6 organizational owners 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.
About 71% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $762K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 675597. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-07, 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.