1307 Martin Luther King Dr, Jefferson, TX 75657 · Marion County · (903) 665-3951
116 certified beds, about 86 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1994
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675241 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 3, 2025, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 44 health citations since August 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $16,498 in the last three years; the largest was $8,691, and the latest is dated April 23, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.29 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.41 of those hours.
58.8% 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 44 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident's representative and physician when there were changes in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status for 1 of 9 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for notification of changes. The facility failed to notify MD E of Resident #2 refusing meals and eating poorly during the month of 2/2026. The facility failed to notify MD E of Resident #2 being combative and refusing medications on 2/15/26. The facility failed to notify Resident #2's RP of his poor oral intake and refusing to eat the month of 2/2026. The facility failed to notify Resident #2's RP of him being combative and refusing his medications on 2/15/26. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving adequate and timely interventions and a decline in condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan to meet the medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs for 2 of 9 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for care plans.1. The facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed and implemented for Resident #1's allergies, discharge plans, code status, cognitive status, incontinence status, activities, pain management, diet, ADL assistance required, risk for falls, risk for pressure ulcers, risk for bleeding, preferences, disease processes: hypertension, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, nutritional deficiency, heart disease, or polyneuropathy, and medications: antianxiety, opioid, antiplatelet, anticonvulsant, diuretics and antidepressant.2. [...]
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 safety in the facility's only kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation. The facility did not ensure: 1. Meat was thawing in the appropriate container and sink under constant flow of cool, running water during the initial tour on 02/26/2024.2. A container which held a thick pink liquid was labeled and dated. 3. A box of frozen biscuits, a box of frozen corn, a plastic bag of cheese, and a plastic bag of chicken nuggets were sealed appropriately in the refrigerator. 4. The potato freezer was free of rust on the bottom shelf inside the freezer. 5. The juice tubing was kept off the ground. These failures could place residents at risk for cross contamination and food-borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and provide care in a manner that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 1 of 12 residents reviewed for resident rights. (Resident #60) The facility failed to protect and promote the rights of Resident #60 by standing over the resident while feeding her, being on a personal cell phone while feeding the resident and not speaking to the resident during the meal. This failure could place residents at risk for decreased self-esteem, decreased privacy and decreased quality of life. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment for 1 of 1 dining room and 3 of 22 residents reviewed for environment. (Resident #18, Resident #40, and Resident #57) 1. The facility failed to repair wall damage in the rooms of Resident #18, Resident #40, and Resident #57 in a timely manner. 2. The facility failed to repair peeling wallpaper above the bed of Resident #40. 3. The facility failed to repair a leaking skylight, clean two vents, and missing texture in the ceiling of the dining room. These failures could place residents at risk of an uncomfortable environment and a decrease in quality of life and self-worth. During an observation on 12/01/25 at 12:16 p.m., it was raining heavily outside. There was water dripping into a bucket sitting on a table from a skylight in the dining room. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene for 1 of 18 residents reviewed for ADL care (Residents #3). The facility did not bathe Resident #3 from 11/19/2025 to 12/02/2025. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving care and services to meet their needs, feelings of poor self-esteem, and lack of dignity and health. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide food that was palatable and attractive for 3 of 5 residents (Resident's #3, #16, and #75) reviewed for palatable food. The facility failed to provide food that was palatable and attractive to Resident #3, #16, and #75 who complained the food was served cool and bland. These failures could place residents who ate food from the kitchen at risk of weight loss, altered nutritional status, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure complete and accurate documentation for 1 of 18 residents reviewed for medical records. (Resident #52.) 1. The facility did not ensure resident records were free from unauthorized use due to staff not having their own individual login for the (EHR). 2. The facility failed to ensure accurate and complete documentation was entered for Resident #52 related to her diabetes management and wound care. These failures could place residents at risk for inaccuracy of clinical records and the decrease continuity of resident care.
Inspectors wroteBased 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 2 of 2 residents (Resident #81 and Resident #83) reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure the LVN L followed the Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) (interventions to prevent spread of infection in high-risk residents) policy of wearing a gown during Resident #81's catheter assessment on 12/1/2025. 2. The facility failed to ensure the ADON followed the Enhanced Barrier Precautions policy of wearing a gown and gloves during an observation of Resident #81's catheter bag on 12/2/2025. 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents have the right to be informed in advance, by the physician or other practitioner or professional, of the risks and benefits of proposed care, of treatment and treatment alternatives or treatment options and to choose the option he or she prefers for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for the right to be informed. (Resident #11) 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #11 had a signed psychotropic consent form for Haldol and Zyprexa (antipsychotic medications). 2. The facility did not ensure the need for, and benefits of, the proposed treatment with antipsychotic or neuroleptic medication was filled out on the HHSC Form 1012 Consent for Antipsychotic or Neuroleptic Medication. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an accurate MDS was completed for 1 of 18 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments. (Resident #8) The facility failed to accurately document restraint usage for Resident #8. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving needed care and services. Record review of an undated face sheet revealed Resident #8 was a 100- year-old- female, admitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease (a general term for loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life), anemia (a condition in which the body does not have enough healthy red blood cells), and malnutrition (a nutritional status in which reduced availability of nutrients leads to changes in body composition and function). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to develop the baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission for 1 of 22 residents (Resident #55) reviewed for baseline care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #55's baseline care plan was completed within 48 hours of admission. This failure could affect residents by not addressing their physical, mental, and psychosocial needs for each resident to attain or maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial outcome.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who had a urinary catheter received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections to the extent possible for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for catheter care. (Resident #81). The facility failed to ensure Resident # 81's securement device was in place to reduce friction and movement at the insertion site on 12/1/2025. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving care and services needed to address catheter care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the PICC line site was maintained consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #83) reviewed for central venous lines (a thin, flexible tube that's inserted into a large vein to provide access to the circulatory system). The facility failed to change a PICC line (a type of central venous line) dressing, consistent with physician's orders for Resident #83. This failure could place residents at risk of a systemic infection that could lead to serious illness and/or death. Record review of a face sheet dated 12/02/25 revealed Resident #83 was a [AGE] year-old male and was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including sepsis due to Escherichia Coli (a life-threatening condition caused by the body's extreme response to an E. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that respiratory care was provided consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 22 residents reviewed for respiratory care. (Resident #10) The facility failed to properly store Resident #10's oxygen mask while not in use by the resident. This failure could place residents at risk of respiratory complications or respiratory infection. 1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and reviews, the facility failed to act upon the recommendations of the pharmacist report of irregularities for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #11) reviewed for (DRR) Drug Regimen Review. The facility failed to complete a psychotropic consent form for Resident #11 after the pharmacist recommended the form was needed on 11/10/2025 for Haldol (antipsychotic mediation) and Zyprexa (antipsychotic medication). This failure could place residents at risk residents of not having a drug regiment that is appropriate for their needs. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation in that: 1. Dietary Manager not properly securing facial hair. 2. Particles on top of dishwasher. 3. Grease buildup on the left side of gas stove and grease [NAME]. These deficient practices could place residents who received meals from the kitchen at risk for food borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents who need respiratory care are provided with such care, consistent with professional standards of practices for 3 of 22 residents (Resident #8, Resident #48, and Resident #190) reviewed for respiratory care. 1. The facility failed to change the oxygen tubing for Resident #8. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #48's nasal cannula humidification bottle (aids in preventing a patient's airways from becoming dry) had water in it. 3. The facility failed to ensure LVN Q performed Resident #190's tracheostomy care using aseptic technique per the facility's policy. 4. The facility failed to ensure LVN Q performed Resident #190's tracheostomy care and cleaning per the facility's policy. 5. The facility failed to ensure LVN Q used the prescribed solution to clean Resident #190's tracheostomy site. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for 3 of 24 residents (Resident #7, Resident #17, and Resident #50) reviewed for reasonable accommodations. The facility failed to ensure Resident #7, Resident #17, and Resident #50's call button was within reach while in bed. These failures could place residents at risk for a delay in assistance and decreased quality of life, self-worth, and dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that that all alleged violations involving a drug diversion were reported after the allegation was made to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency) in accordance with State law through established procedures for 1 resident (Resident #25) of 4 resident reviewed for drug diversion in that: The facility was made aware of a possible drug diversion on 07/12/2024. LVN M reported to the ADM receiving a bottle of hydromorphone from Hospice Nurse N that was tampered with upon receipt of the medication. This failure could result in allegations or instances of resident drug diversion not being reported or investigated by the state survey agency.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the baseline care plan that included the instructions for resident care needed to provide effective and person-centered care was completed and provided to the resident and/or their representative for 3 of 9 residents reviewed for new admissions (Resident #2, Resident #36, and Resident #190). The facility failed to complete a baseline care plan for Resident #36 within 48 hours of admission. The facility failed to provide Resident #2 and Resident #190's RP, a copy of the summary of the baseline care plan. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving care and services to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to meet resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs identified in the comprehensive assessment for 2 of 26 residents reviewed for care plans.(Resident #30 and Resident #43). 1. The care plan for Resident #30 failed to address his Stage IV sacral pressure ulcer. 2. The care plan for Resident #43 failed to address new interventions and updates for fall prevention. Theses failures could place residents at risk for not receiving the necessary care or having important care needs identified.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents received care, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent pressure ulcers based on the comprehensive assessment for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #36 and Resident #187) whose record were reviewed for skin integrity. The facility failed to ensure Resident #36 and Resident #187's pressure-relieving mattress (is designed to distribute the patient's body weight over a broad surface area and help prevent skin breakdown) was on the correct settings. This failure could place residents at risk for developing and/or worsening of pressure ulcers
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections (an infection in any part of the urinary system, the kidneys, bladder, or urethra (is a hollow tube that lets urine leave your body)). The facility failed to ensure LVN Q documented Resident #2 had red-tinged urine (a urinary tract infection (UTI) is one of the most common causes of blood in your urine) in his indwelling catheter (drains urine from your bladder into a bag outside your body). The facility failed to ensure LVN Q reported to LVN M that Resident #2 had red-tinged urine in his indwelling catheter. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to include procedures that assured the accurate dispensing and administering of all drugs to meet the needs of 1 of 7 residents reviewed for pharmaceutical services. (Resident #17) Facility staff left Resident #17's medications at the bedside. These deficient practices could affect residents and place them at risk of not receiving the therapeutic dosage and drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure, based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, residents who had not used psychotropic drugs were not given these drugs unless the medication was necessary to treat a specific condition as diagnosed and documented in the clinical record for 1 of 26 residents (Resident #287) reviewed for psychotropic medications. The facility failed to have an appropriate diagnosis or indication of use for Resident #287's Quetiapine (antipsychotic). These failures could put residents at risk of receiving unnecessary psychotropic medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents were free of significant medication errors for 1 of 5 residents (Residents #36) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #36 Levothyroxine (is used to treat hypothyroidism, a condition where the thyroid gland does not produce enough thyroid hormone) and Pantoprazole (is used to treat heartburn and certain other conditions caused by too much acid in the stomach) were scheduled and administered for optimal therapeutic effect (is a consequence of the medical treatment of any kind, the results of which are judged to be desirable and beneficial). This failure could place residents at risk of medical complications and not receiving the therapeutic effects of their medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible and provide supervision to prevent avoidable accidents for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident #1) The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was properly transferred in bed by facility staff. This failure could place residents at risk of injury from accident and hazards.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure pain management was provided to residents who require such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, pain management services for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for pain. (Resident #1) Resident #1 complained of pain in her heel prior to wound care. She complained of pain during the wound care treatment and at no time was the wound care held or pain medications offered. Review of Resident #1's physician orders indicated she did not have any PRN pain medications ordered. This failure caused the resident to experience pain during wound care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention program designed to provide a safe sanitary and comfortable environment and to prevent the development of infections for 4 of 5 residents reviewed for infections. (Residents #1, #3, #4, and #5) The Treatment Nurse did not wash her hands while providing wound treatments for Residents #1, #3, #4, and #5. The treatment nurse did not change her gloves between dirty and clean wounds for Resident #1. The Treatment Nurse did not change gloves from one wound to the next wound during Resident #5's wound treatments. This negative finding had the potential to cause infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility has failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible and the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 2 residents (Residents #1) reviewed for accidents and supervision. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's wheelchair brakes were functioning correctly to prevent a fall in her bathroom which resulted in a fracture. This failure could place residents at risk of injury from accidents and hazards.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all patient care equipment was in safe operating condition for 1 of 2 resident (Resident#1) reviewed safe, functional equipment. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's wheelchair brakes were functioning correctly. This failure could place residents at risk of injuries and falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the facility's only kitchen, reviewed for kitchen sanitation. The facility failed to ensure refrigerated foods were properly labeled and dated. This failure could place residents at risk for food-borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, 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 and provide the resident and their representative with a summary of the baseline care plan that included goals of the resident, summary of medications and dietary instructions, and services and treatments for 5 of 10 residents reviewed for baseline care plans. (Resident #238, Resident #240, Resident #339, Resident #388, and Resident #389) 1. The facility failed to develop a baseline care plan with initial goals and the minimum healthcare information necessary to provide person-centered care for Resident #238, Resident #240, Resident #339, Resident #388, and Resident #389. 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to treat residents with respect and dignity and care for them in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of their quality of life for 1 of 24 residents reviewed for resident rights in the memory care unit. (Resident #60) The facility failed to treat Residents #60 with respect and dignity when she had to wait 15 minutes to receive her lunch tray after the other resident at her table had already been served their meal and been eating in front of her. This failure could place residents at risk for decreased quality of life, decreased self-esteem and increase anxiety.
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 for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #11) reviewed for reasonable accommodations. The facility failed to ensure Resident #11 call light was within reach. The facility failed to ensure Resident #11 had an alternative means to get assistance due to her visual impairment. The facility failed to collaborate with Resident #11 and Resident #11's responsible party to ensure her environment accommodated her visual impairment. These failures could place residents at risk for unmet needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment 1 of 17 residents reviewed for environment. (Resident #48) The facility failed to repair the wall mounted bathroom toilet paper dispenser of Resident #48. This failure could place residents at risk of an unsafe or uncomfortable environment and a decrease in quality of life and self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to meet each resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs for 3 of 17 residents reviewed for care plans. (Resident #239, Resident #11, Resident #43) 1. The facility failed to implement the comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #239 by not having a fall mat at the bedside. 2. The facility failed to implement Resident #11's care plan to document behavioral monitoring for antidepressant (treats clinical depression), antipsychotic (manage psychosis (disconnect from reality)), and anti-anxiety (treats chronic anxiety) medications. 3. The facility failed to develop a care plan problem for Resident #43 to address behavioral monitoring for Aripiprazole (antipsychotic). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 3 of 34 residents (Resident #239, Resident #25, Resident #11) reviewed for adequate supervision. 1. The facility failed to place Resident #239's fall mat next to her bed. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #11, and Resident #25 did not have fall hazards in their room. These failures could place residents at risk for injury, harm, and impairment or death.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals, and preferences for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #388, #82, and #63) reviewed for respiratory care and services. The facility failed to properly store Resident #388's respiratory equipment when not in use. The facility failed to date Resident #388's oxygen tubing and humidifier water bottle. The facility failed to change oxygen tubing every Friday, as ordered by the physician for Resident #82. The facility failed to label/date and properly store Resident #63's nasal cannula/humidifier and nebulizer mask. These failures could place residents at risk for developing respiratory complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure dialysis service were provided consistently with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis services. (Resident #240) The facility failed to develop a process to communicate, with the dialysis facility, Resident #240 received care and services. This failure could place residents who received dialysis at risk for complications and not receiving proper care and treatment to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services including procedures that assure the accurate administering of all drugs and biologicals, to meet the needs of 2 of 4 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. (Residents #43 and Resident #240) The facility failed to keep in stock medications for Resident #43 and Resident #240. This failure could place residents at risk for inaccurate drug administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to accommodate residents' food preferences for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #52) reviewed for preference. The facility failed to honor Resident #52's food dislikes. This failure could result in a decrease in resident choices, diminished interest in meals, and weight loss.
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 2 of 22 residents reviewed for infection control. (Resident #45, Resident #68) The facility failed ensure blood was cleaned from the wall near the bed of Resident #45. The facility failed to ensure that personal protective equipment used in Resident #68's room was thrown away properly and that bloody soiled toilet paper was thrown away.
6 fire safety citations on file: 4 on September 19, 2024, 2 on August 16, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 23, 2024 | Fine | $8,691 |
| September 20, 2023 | Fine | $7,807 |
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) | 3.29 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.83 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.15 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.73 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 58.8% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 54.5% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.58 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 3.48 on weekdays and 2.83 on weekends, 19% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.30 in April to June 2025 to 3.29 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 | 3.29 | 0.41 | 3.48 | 2.83 | 1.5% | 0 of 90 | 86 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.44 | 0.34 | 3.63 | 2.96 | 5.4% | 1 of 92 | 91 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.53 | 0.43 | 3.79 | 2.85 | 1.6% | 0 of 92 | 94 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.30 | 0.40 | 4.70 | 3.30 | 0.2% | 0 of 91 | 88 |
| 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 | 16.8 | 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 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.2 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.2 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.2 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.4 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 29.4 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.8 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Avir at Jefferson's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (41.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
41.1% this home
No different from the national rate
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. 48 eligible stays.
10.1% 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. 70 eligible stays.
6.6% this home
No different from the national rate
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. 61 eligible stays.
46.8% this home
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. 47 residents counted.
5.6% this home
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. 72 residents counted.
4.7% this home
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. 72 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. 9 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: FANNIN COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY. CMS links this home to Avir Health Group, a group of 118 nursing homes averaging 2.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fannin County Hospital Authority | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 04/01/2018 |
| Sanderson, Clark | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2018 | |
| 1307 Martin Luther King Dr Opco, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/01/2025 | |
| Barbolla, Kimberly | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2025 | |
| Freund, Nochum | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2025 | |
| Travitsky, Aaron | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2025 | |
| Dagan, Amitai | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 11/20/2025 | |
| Goldberger, Abraham | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 11/20/2025 | |
| Goldberger, Faigy | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 11/20/2025 | |
| 1307 Martin Luther King Dr Property Owner, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2025 | |
| Welltower Nnn Group, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2025 | |
| Welltower Op, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/01/2025 | |
| Barbolla, Kimberly | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2025 | |
| Kale, James | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/01/2025 |
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.