7100 Trail Lake Dr, Fort Worth, TX 76133 · Tarrant County · (817) 263-2224
120 certified beds, about 69 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2007
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 676132 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 9, 2026, inspectors cited 5 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 33 health citations since October 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (3 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $180,340 in the last three years; the largest was $152,296, and the latest is dated November 19, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.06 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.59 of those hours.
71.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Avir Health Group, an affiliated group of 118 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 33 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish a system of records of receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation for 4 Residents (Resident# 78, Resident# 62, Resident# 14, and Resident# 20) of 10 Residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure proper disposal of Resident #78's Lorazepam (controlled medication) which expired on [DATE]. The facility failed to ensure proper disposal of Resident #62's Tylenol# 3 (controlled medication) which expired on [DATE]. The facility failed to ensure proper disposal of Resident #14's Tramadol HCL tab 50mg- (controlled medication) which expired on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable for 1 resident (Resident#3) medication on 2 medication carts (hall 100 nurses cart and 400/500/600 medication aides cart) reviewed for pharmacy Services. The facility failed to ensure Zofran 4mg (prescription medication for nausea and vomiting) was labeled with patients label before storing in the medication cart. The facility failed to ensure Nystatin powder 100,000 powder units (a prescription-only antifungal medication used to treat fungal and yeast infections), was properly labeled with patients label before storing in the medication cart. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased 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 only kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation and food storage. 1) The facility failed to ensure food items were properly labeled with the product's name and expiration dates. 2) The facility failed to ensure food items were properly sealed and dated when not in use. These failures could place the residents at risk for food-borne illness and food contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review (PASRR) program under Medicaid in subpart C of this part to the maximum extent practicable to avoid duplicative testing and effort for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #10 and Resident #65) reviewed for assessments.1)Resident #10's PASRR Level I was negative for mental illness despite having a diagnosis of anxiety disorder (ongoing uncontrollable, and excessive worry, fear, or dread that significantly interferes with daily life), bipolar disorder (extreme, recurring mood swings), depression (feelings of severe sadness and inability to initiate activity), and PTSD (triggered by witnessing or experiencing a terrifying or life-threatening event).). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation , interviews and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 2 of 7 residents (Resident #68 and Resident#6) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #68's comprehensive care plan identified bed rail use as an intervention for mobility assistance. The facility failed to ensure Resident #6's comprehensive care plan identified the resident had a Colostomy (a surgical procedure that brings a portion of the large intestine (colon) to the outside of the abdominal wall to create an opening called a stoma. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for one (Resident #1) of four residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to provide an alternative means of communication to the call light system for Resident #1. This failure could place residents at risk for delayed assistance and an inability to request help when needed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care that meet the professional standards of quality of care for one (Resident #2) of four residents reviewed for baseline care plans. The facility failed to complete a baseline care plan within 48 hours of Resident #2's admission to the facility. This failure could place the residents at risk of not receiving effective, person-centered care and experiencing adverse events that are most likely to occur right after admission.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program, including hand hygiene, designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 6 residents (Residents #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for infection control practices 1. CNA A and CNA B failed to perform hand hygiene prior to and after providing Resident #2 with incontinence care.2. CNA A and CNA B failed to wear a gown when providing incontinence care to Resident #2, who was on EBP due to having a feeding tube. 3. CNA A failed to perform hand hygiene and glove changes while providing Resident #1 and Resident #2 with incontinence care. These failures could place residents at risk of cross-contamination and infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public for 15 of 18 rooms (Rooms 102, 202, 203, 401, 402, 403, 411, 503, 508, 601, 603, 607, 608, 612, and 806) reviewed for physical environment. The facility failed to ensure residents had functioning toilets, sinks, and electrical outlets in Rooms 102, 202, 203, 401, 402, 403, 411, 503, 508, 601, 603, 607, 608, 612, and 806. This failure could place residents at an increased risk of infection or poor sanitation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse and neglect. CNA C, who was responsible for providing Resident #1 with one-to-one supervision, failed to protect the resident when the resident entered into a verbal altercation with CNA A, which escalated to CNA A spraying [NAME] at the resident on 11/16/25. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance. The noncompliance began on 11/16/25 and ended on 11/18/25. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. The failure placed residents at risk for serious physical and psychological harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse and neglect, were reported immediately, but not later than two hours after the allegation was made, if the events that caused the allegation involved abuse or resulted in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. CNA F and CNA G failed to report to the Administrator when they overheard CNA A threaten to [NAME] Resident #1 during a verbal altercation the morning of 11/16/25. Four hours later, the resident entered into a verbal altercation with CNA A, which escalated to CNA A spraying [NAME] at the resident. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance. The noncompliance began on 11/16/25 and ended on 11/18/25. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, 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 one resident (Resident #1) of three residents, reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure CNA A and CNA B changed gloves and performed hand hygiene during incontinence care for Resident #1. This failure placed residents at risk for healthcare associated cross contamination and infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure only permitted and authorized personnel had access to the keys for 1 of 8 medication carts (Hall 400/500/600 cart) reviewed for drug storage. RN A failed to secure the keys for the medication cart for Halls 400/500/600 after shift change. This failure could place residents at risk of accessing medications not intended for them.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prepare food by methods that conserve nutritive value for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food and nutrition services. Cook E failed to prepare the pureed lunch meal in a manner to conserve nutrition, flavor, and palatability on 04/23/25 when she added water to the pureed scalloped potatoes and cornbread and did not follow the recipes. The failure could place residents, who were on a pureed diet, at risk for a decrease in nutritive status, loss of appetite, decreased intake and unwanted weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for 1 or 2 meals (lunch) reviewed for food meeting residents' needs. The facility failed to prepare and serve pureed scalloped potatoes as a pudding consistency for residents who required pureed diets during the lunch meal on 04/23/25. This deficient practice could affect residents and place them at risk of not receiving meals that meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services for 2 of 5 residents (Residents #14 and #54) reviewed for tube feeding management. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #14 received g-tube stoma site dressing changes and g-tube water flushes according to physician's orders. 2. LVN A and LVN B failed to ensure Resident #54's feeding tube infusion pump rate was correct. These failures could place residents at risk of dehydration, malnutrition, weight loss, and possible infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed for one of one lunch meals observed. The facility failed to ensure residents on mechanical soft diets were served soft chicken fried steak they were served soft chicken instead, residents on pureed diets were served pureed chicken instead of pureed chicken fried steak on 11/05/24 as specified by the menu for the lunch meal. This failure could place residents at risk of weight loss, altered nutritional status and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility provided food that was palatable, for one of one observed meal reviewed for dietary services. The facility failed to serve food that had a palatable flavor during the lunch meal on 11/05/24. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk of weight loss, altered nutritional status, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to 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 6 residents (Residents #14 and #33) observed for infection control. 1. LVN C failed to adhere to enhanced barrier precautions by failing to put on a gown prior to flushing Resident #14's g-tube with water. 2. CNA E failed to adhere to enhanced barrier precautions by failing to put on a gown prior to emptying Resident #33's colostomy bag. The failure could place residents at risk for the development of infections which could cause illness or hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation. 1. The facility failed to ensure there was hot water in the kitchen to supply to the dish machine and three-compartment sink, so staff had to boil water to wash, rinse, and sanitize. 2. The facility failed to ensure the sanitizer used in the three-compartment sink did not exceed 200 ppm. This failure could place residents at risk for food contamination and food borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for 1 (Residents #3) of 10 residents reviewed for accommodation of needs. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3's call light was accommodating to meet his needs, with the resident being diagnosed with quadriplegia. This failure could place all residents at risk of the inability to contact the nursing staff and obtain assistance when needed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a person-centered, comprehensive care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet residents medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs for two (Resident #1 and Resident #2) of ten residents reviewed for care plans. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's comprehensive care plan addressed the resident's interventions for her pacemaker. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's comprehensive care plan addressed the resident's interventions for GI diagnoses and chronic symptoms. These failures could affect residents at the facility who require a care plan and place them at risk for not receiving the appropriate care and services needed to maintain optimal health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residenst had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents for 6 (Residents # 1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6) of 7 residents reviewed for safe environment. The facility failed to ensure Residents # 1, #2, #3, #4, #5, and #6 had call lights within reach. This failure could place residents at risk of not being able to call for help if needed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for 2 (Residents #1 and #2) of 7 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility failed to ensure Residents #1 and #2 were repositioned frequently to reduce the risk of pressure ulcers. This failure could place residents at risk of developing pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 3 (Resident # 81, Resident #82, and Resident #85) of 6 resident reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure Residents #81, #82, and #85's oxygen concentrator tubing was changed, labeled, and dated. This failure could place the resident at risk for respiratory infection and not having their respiratory needs met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents for 3 of 5 residents (Residents #3, #6 and #9) reviewed for accommodation of needs. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3's call light was placed within her reach. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #6's call light was placed within her reach. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #9''s call light was placed within her reach. These failures could place residents at risk of injuries and unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene for 4 of 5 residents (Residents #19, #37, #9 and #39) reviewed for ADLs. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #19 received showers as scheduled for the month of November. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #37 received showers as scheduled for the month of November. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #9 received showers as scheduled for the month of November. 4. The facility failed to ensure Resident #39 received showers as scheduled for the month of November. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving services or care, decreased quality of life, and decreased self-esteem.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that are complete and accurately documented for 2 of 5 residents (Residents #15 and #19) reviewed for clinical records. 1. The facility failed to ensure staff accurately documented on Resident #15s MAR. 2. The facility failed to ensure staff accurately documented on Resident #19s MAR. This failure could affect residents that received medications and place them at risk of inaccurate or incomplete clinical records.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility with more than 120 beds, failed to employ a qualified social worker on a full-time basis for one of one Social Worker reviewed for qualified social worker, in that: The facility, licensed for 120 beds, had not employed a full-time, qualified social worker since 07/17/23. This deficient practice could result in residents' social service needs not being met.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to collaborate with hospice representatives and coordinate the hospice care planning process for each resident receiving hospice services, to ensure quality of care for the resident, ensuring communication with the hospice medical director, the resident's attending physician, and others participating in the provision of care for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #18) reviewed for hospice services. The facility failed to obtain Resident #18's physician's order for hospice services. This deficient practice could place residents who receive hospice services at-risk of receiving inadequate end-of-life care due to a lack of documentation, coordination of care and communication of resident needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and record review, the facility failed to assure full visual privacy for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #10) reviewed for visual privacy. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #10 would have full visual privacy by providing a ceiling hung curtain that would surround her bed. This finding could leave the resident exposed while care was being provided.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 7 residents (Resident #39) reviewed for resident call systems had a functioning call light. The facility failed to ensure Resident #39's call light was functioning properly. This failure could place the resident at risk of not receiving care when requested, resulting in a fall.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation for 1 of 6 residents reviewed (Resident # 1) for abuse, neglect and sexual exploitation. The facility failed to properly monitor and supervise resident relationships and interactions which resulted in an incident of unwanted sexual conduct. Resident #1 reported being sexually assaulted and was sent to the hospital where a SANE exam was performed. As a result of the sexual incident, Resident #1 reported to hospital staff that she was experiencing emotional distress, pain, and no longer wanted to remain at the facility as she did not feel safe. This failure resulted in an identification of an Immediate Jeopardy on 10/20/23 at 6:40 PM. [...]
27 fire safety citations on file: 8 on June 9, 2026, 15 on April 24, 2025, 4 on November 6, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| November 19, 2025 | Fine | $17,345 |
| June 14, 2024 | Fine | $152,296 |
| April 30, 2024 | Fine | $10,699 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Texas | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.06 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.59 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.73 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.77 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.71 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 71.6% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 55.6% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.16 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.20 on weekdays and 2.73 on weekends, 15% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.56 in April to June 2025 to 3.06 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.06 | 0.59 | 3.20 | 2.73 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 69 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.43 | 0.57 | 3.55 | 3.14 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 67 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.27 | 0.50 | 3.38 | 3.01 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 70 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.56 | 0.37 | 3.72 | 3.18 | 2.1% | 0 of 91 | 60 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Texas, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.33 | 0.40 | 3.50 | 2.93 | 2.2% | 0.7% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texas, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.03 | $16.97 to $20.71 | 88,680 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.92 | $27.46 to $32.89 | 57,560 |
| Registered nurses | $46.14 | $38.06 to $50.53 | 271,380 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Texas | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.4 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.8 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.7 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.6 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.3 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.6 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.4 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Avir at Fort Worth's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 51.5% · Texas: 116 better, 50 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 17 eligible stays.
13.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Texas: 0 better, 9 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 50 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 7.1% · Texas: 4 better, 11 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 19 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Texas57.3% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 10 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Texas0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 11 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Texas1.3% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 11 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Texas98.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 3 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: EASTLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Avir Health Group, a group of 118 nursing homes averaging 2.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eastland Memorial Hospital District | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 04/01/2017 |
| 7100 Trail Lake Drive Property Owner, LLC | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Welltower Inc | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Welltower Nnn Group, LLC | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Welltower Op, LLC | 5% or greater security interest | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Wright, Laban | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/20/2022 | |
| 7100 Trail Lake Drive Opco, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Freund, Nochum | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Jamal, Syed | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Travitsky, Aaron | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Dagan, Amitai | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 04/16/2025 | |
| Goldberger, Abraham | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 04/16/2025 | |
| 7100 Trail Lake Drive Opco, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/03/2025 | |
| 7100 Trail Lake Drive Property Owner, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Welltower Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Welltower Nnn Group, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Welltower Op, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/01/2025 | |
| Jamal, Syed | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2025 | |
| Traylor, Kevin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2025 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Texas. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.