600 Bacon Street, Madisonville, TX 77864 · Madison County · (936) 348-9097
90 certified beds, about 59 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2019
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 676475 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 4, 2026, inspectors cited 10 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 46 health citations since September 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $8,827 in the last three years; the largest was $8,827, and the latest is dated October 3, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.17 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.35 of those hours.
56.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Gulf Coast LTC Partners, an affiliated group of 20 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 46 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for three of three medication carts ( A hall and B hall medication cart and A/D hall nurses' medication cart).1. The facility failed to ensure that the medications and/or biological stored in the A hall medication cart were not expired.2. The facility failed to ensure that the medications and/or biological stored in the B hall medication cart were not expired.3. The facility failed to ensure that the medications and/or biological stored in the A/D hall nurses' medication cart were not expired. [...]
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 1 medications room observed for infection prevention and control. The facility failed to ensure that hypodermic needles stored in the medication storage room were not expired. This failure could place residents at risk for infection, hospitalization, and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Level I assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 3 residents ( Resident #53). The facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the PASARR Level 1 (PL1) screening for Resident # 53. The PASARR Level 1 screening did not indicate a diagnosis of mental illness, although the diagnosis psychotic disorders with hallucinations due to physiological condition ( a person is experiencing loss of contact with reality, specifically seeing, hearing, or feeling things that aren't there, as a direct physical consequence of an underlying medical illness) was present upon Resident #53's admission date on 03/29/2022. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview 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 two of six residents (Resident # 14 and Resident # 34) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan to reflect Resident #14 and Resident #34's ADLs as reflected on the MDS.These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving appropriate interventions to meet their medical needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments for two of seven residents (Resident #4 and Resident #52) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to update the comprehensive care plan to reflect Resident #4's triggers of PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). The facility failed to update the comprehensive care plan to reflect Resident #52 received in room activity programs. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving appropriate interventions to meet their psychosocial and medical needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, 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 two of eight residents (Resident # 14 and Resident # 34) reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #14 and Resident #34's nails were cleaned on 06/02/2026. These failures could place residents at risk for poor hygiene, dignity issues, and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide, based on the comprehensive assessment and care plan and the preferences of each resident, an ongoing program to support residents in their choice of activities, both facility-sponsored group and individual activities and independent activities, designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident, encouraging both independence and interaction in the community for two of six residents (Resident # 5, and Resident #52) reviewed for activities. The facility failed to provide Resident #5 and Resident #11 in room activities two- three times per week from May 18, 2026, to June 1,2026. This failure could place residents at risk for boredom, depression, and a diminished quality of life.
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 one of four residents reviewed for catheter care (Resident #4). The facility failed to ensure Resident #4's urinary drainage bag tubing was untangled and bag was kept from being hung on the garbage can. This failure could place residents with indwelling catheters at risk of developing infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents, who needed respiratory care, were provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for one (Residents #55) of three residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #55's mask for CPAP(Continuous Positive Airway Pressure- a machine that delivers a steady stream of pressurized air through a mask while you sleep, to keep a person's breathing passages from collapsing) was properly stored when not in use on 06/02/2026 and 06/03/2026. This failure could place residents at risk for respiratory infection and not having their respiratory needs met.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents who were trauma survivors received culturally competent, trauma-informed care in accordance with professional standards of practice and accounting for residents' experiences and preferences in order to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the resident for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for trauma-informed care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4 had a trauma screening that identified possible triggers when Resident #4 had a history of trauma. This failure could place residents at an increased risk for severe psychological distress due to re-traumatization.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident had the right to be treated with respect and dignity for one of five residents (Resident #1) reviewed for dignity. Housekeeper A failed to speak to Resident #1 in a way that promoted her dignity and self-worth. This failure could place residents at risk of a decline in their sense of dignity, level of satisfaction with life, and feeling of self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, and distribute food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for one of one kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation. The facility failed to ensure Dietary Aide A wore a beard guard when standing over clean dishes in the kitchen. This failure could place residents who ate food from the kitchen at risk for foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure medications and biologicals were stored in locked compartments for one of two medication carts reviewed for medication storage. The facility failed to ensure Medication Cart A was locked and medications were secure and not accessible to other staff, residents, or visitors. This failure could place residents at risk of having unauthorized access to prescriptions, biologicals, and over-the-counter medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodations 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 10 residents (Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3's call lights were within reach on 05/20/2025. This failure could place residents at risk of their needs not being met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to personal privacy and confidentiality of his or her personal and medical records for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #4) reviewed for personal privacy and confidentiality of records. The facility failed to ensure the LVN provided privacy by closing the laptop and leaving the laptop unattended in the hallway which displayed Resident #4's information on 05/20/2025. This failure could place residents at risk of having medical information personal or care instructions exposed to others and misuse of personal information.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 4 of 10 residents (Resident #21, Resident #65, Resident #10 and Resident #7) and 1 of 1 shower rooms (A Hall) reviewed for resident rights. A) The facility failed to ensure Resident #21's room and shower was clean. B) The facility failed to ensure the A Hall shower room was clean and free of mold, trash and soiled washcloths. C) The facility failed to ensure Resident # 65's tray table was in good repair. D) The facility failed to ensure there were intact privacy curtains in Resident #10 and Resident #7's room. These failures could place residents at risk of not having a safe, clean, sanitary, comfortable and homelike environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to provide the necessary services for residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADL) to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for 4 of 4 Residents (Residents #65, Resident 56, Resident #22, and Resident #24) reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #65, Resident #56, Resident #22, and Resident #24's nails were trimmed, cleaned, and filed. This failure could place residents who were dependent on staff for ADL care at risk for loss of dignity, risk for infections, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure in accordance with State and Federal Laws, all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments, and had current expiration dates for 1 of 1 medication storage rooms, 1 of 2 medication carts (A Hall medication aide cart), and 1 of 1 treatment carts reviewed for medication storage. A) The facility failed to ensure two medications in the storage room behind the nurse's station were not expired and one medication in the A Hall cart was not expired. B) The facility failed to ensure the wound care treatment cart was locked. These failures could place residents in the facility at risk of receiving expired and ineffective medications, and misuse of medications.
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. The facility failed to ensure Dietary [NAME] M did not add an unmeasured amount of milk to the bread puree. This failure could place residents at risk of decreased food intake, hungry, unwanted weight loss, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for one of one kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation. 1. The facility failed to ensure Dietary Aide L wore a hair net when standing over the clean dishes and when she placed the clean dishes on the food prep area in the kitchen. 2. The facility failed to ensure Dietary Aide K used proper hand hygiene during preparation of the lunch meal. These failures could place residents who ate food from the kitchen at risk for foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure personal privacy for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #52) reviewed for privacy while receiving wound care. The facility failed to ensure the privacy of Resident #52 by not closing the door all the way or pulling a privacy curtain during wound care. This failure could place residents at risk of loss of privacy and dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan to meet the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of 1 (Resident #5) of 19 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #5's comprehensive care plan reflected a plan of care for her left-hand contracture (A permanent tightening of the muscles, tendons, skin, and surrounding tissues that causes the joints to shorten and stiffen and a decrease in ROM) with interventions for the care and treatment of her left-hand contracture. These failures could place residents at risk for not receiving appropriate care and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for one of six residents (Resident #27) reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to provide wound care for Resident #27 using professional wound care standards and failed to follow the facility Validation Checklist Wound Care procedure. This failure could place residents at risk of improper wound management, deterioration in existing wounds, leading to infection and pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure 1of 3 residents reviewed with limited range of motion (Resident #5), received appropriate treatment and services to prevent a decline in range of motion. The facility failed to ensure Resident #5 had interventions in place for her left- hand contracture (A permanent tightening of the muscles, tendons, skin, and surrounding tissues that causes the joints to shorten and stiffen and a decrease in ROM) to prevent further decline of the range of motion in her right hand. This failure placed residents with contractures at risk for decrease in mobility, range of motion, and contribute to worsening of contractures. Findings Include: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents who are incontinent of bladder receive appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for one of four residents reviewed for catheters (Resident #9). The facility failed to ensure Resident #9 received care to prevent urinary tract infections when they placed her catheter tubing under her leg and failed to have a secure catheter device in place to prevent dislodgement of the catheter. These failures could place residents with external catheters at risk for urinary tract infections and traumatic removal of the urinary catheter.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility did not provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident for one (Resident #69) of six residents reviewed for pharmaceutical services. The facility failed to ensure MA F waited for Resident #69 to consume her morning medications on 04/08/2025 before leaving the resident's room and to administer medication. The facility further failed to ensure Resident #69 receive antibiotic medication for UTI on 04/08/2025 in PM. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of the medications.
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 15 residents, (Resident # 27) observed for infection control practices. The facility failed to ensure LVN B used proper infection control procedures while proving wound care. This failure could place residents at risk for cross contamination and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident's medical records included documentation that indicated the resident, or their responsible party, received education of the benefits, and potential side effects, of the influenza or pneumococcal immunization, receipt of the influenza or pneumococcal immunization, or residents did not receive the influenza or pneumococcal immunization due to medical contraindication, or refusal, for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record reviews, the facility failed to implement their policy to ensure the residents, or their responsible party, received education of the benefits and risks, or potential side effects of Covid-19 immunizations, receipt of Covid-19 immunizations, or the residents did not receive the Covid-19 immunizations, due to medical contraindication, or refusal, for 2 of 5 residents who were reviewed for immunizations. (Resident #5 and Resident #67) The facility failed to document, in Resident #5's and Resident #67's medical records, having had received education, whether by self or with their responsible party, of the benefits and risk, and potential side effects, of the Covid-19 immunization, receipt of the of the Covid-19 immunization, or having had not received the Covid-19 immunization due to medical contraindication or refusal. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible and ensure each resident received adequate supervision for one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed for accidents and hazards. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 did not elope from the front door of the facility and had adequate supervision. This failure could place residents at risk of accidents, and injuries due to a lack of supervision. The noncompliance was identified as PNC IJ. The IJ began on 08/12/2024 to 08/24/2024/ and ended on 08/24/2024. The facility had implemented actions that corrected the deficient practice prior to the beginning of the investigation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 9 residents (Residents #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, Resident #5, Resident #6, Resident #7, Resident #8 and Resident #9) of 12 residents reviewed for medication administration were free of significant medication errors. Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, Resident #5, Resident #6, Resident #7, Resident #8 and Resident #9 did not receive their evening medications scheduled in the evening (to be administered between 4:00pm and 6pm) on 05/01/24 and 05/07/24 as ordered by the physician, placing them at risk. These failures could place residents at risk for not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of the medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation. interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary services to maintain grooming and personal care for 4 of 5 residents (Residents #1, # 2, # 3 and #4) reviewed for ADL care in that: A) Resident #1 was not provided with nail care. B) Resident #2 was not provided with nail care. C) Resident #3 was not provided with nail care. D) Resident #4 was not provided with brief changes and peri care. These failures could place residents at risk of skin breakdown, pain, infection, and loss of self-esteem.
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 2 (Resident #56 and Resident #3) of 5 residents reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure LVN A performed hand hygiene during wound care for Resident #56. 2. The facility failed to ensure CNA B and RA C performed hand hygiene during incontinence care for Resident #3.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 1 (Resident #30) of 5 residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to honor Resident #30's choice to not take Mirtazapine (anti-depressant). This failure placed residents at risk for loss of dignity and self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 6 resident (Resident #26 ) reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to supervise Resident #26 while smoking. This failure could place residents who required supervision while smoking at risk for burns.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received food prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance that is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 1 (Resident #33) reviewed for food and nutrition services. The facility failed to ensure the pureed meal which consisted of steak patty with brown gravy, broccoli and cauliflower blend, au gratin potatoes, and roll were prepared in a way to preserve vitamins and taste by not following required measuring when adding thickener and water to the food items. This failure could place residents at risk of nutrition and hydration and negatively impact the recovery from, illness or injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the facility's only kitchen, reviewed for food storage, labeling, dating, and kitchen sanitation. The facility failed to ensure food in the facility's dry goods storage, was labeled and dated according to guidelines. These failures could place residents at risk for food-borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that 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 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for personal hygiene, in that: The facility failed provide showers to Resident #1 in compliance with her shower schedule. This deficient practice could place residents who are dependent on staff for ADL care at risk of poor hygiene, grooming, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure all allegations involving abuse and neglect were immediately reported no later than 24 hours after an allegation was made for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for grievances, in that: The facility failed to report Resident #1's allegation of verbal abuse to the State Agency within 24 hours. Resident #1's family filed a grievance on 10/18/23 that stated Resident #1 told them that staff were not changing her wound dressing, her wound was worsening, and she would not ask staff for assistance because staff yelled at her when she asked. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of abuse or neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident within 48 hours of the resident's admission that included instructions for providing effective and person-centered care for the resident and met professional standards of quality care for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care plans, in that: The facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan for Resident #1. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not having their immediate care needs met or not receiving continuity of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care plans, in that: The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #1. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not having their individual care needs met or diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remains as free of accidents and hazards for one (1) of one facility resident transport van reviewed for accidents and hazards. The facility failed to ensure the facility resident transport van used for dialysis appointments was maintained properly for safety hazards that may result in an injury to a resident. The transport van overheated en route back to the facility, the starter needed to be replaced, and then the engine needed to be replaced. The resident transport van was used 3-4 times a week on average for appointments, activity outings, etc. This failure could place residents at risk of injuries, illness, and hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents had comfortable and safe temperature levels for one of four halls (D hall) and the dining area. The facility failed to ensure the facility was maintained at a comfortable and safe temperature level and maintained a temperature range of 71 to 81°F, when the HVAC units for the dining area and D hall were not functioning and the temperatures in these areas were between 79 -85 degrees. This failure placed residents at risk for heat related illnesses and an uncomfortable environment leading to a decreased quality of life. Findings Included: On 8/22/23 at 10:50 am, the MTD director stated there had been a problem for about 2 weeks with the air-conditioning in the dining room. He stated they had the unit repaired back in July of 2023, but it stopped working about 2 weeks ago. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remains free of accidents and hazards for one (1) of one facility resident transport van reviewed for accidents and hazards. The facility failed to ensure the facility resident transport van was inspected yearly for safety hazards that may result in an injury to a resident. The resident transport van was used 3-4 times a week on average for appointments, activity outings, etc. This failure could place residents at risk of injuries, illness, and hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review the facility failed to be administered in a manner that maintained the wellbeing of each resident when the administration did not take immediate action when the motor vehicle insurance lapsed for one (van #1) out of one resident transport van The facility administration failed to ensure that the vehicle insurance for the resident transport van was paid and insurance in place prior to using the van for resident transports. The resident transport van was used 3-4 times a week on average for dialysis appointments, doctor appointments, activity outings, etc. This failure placed residents at risk of not having necessary resources and services available to them during day-to-day operations and emergencies which could result in lack of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to operate and provide services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes, for 1 of 1 facility resident transport van reviewed for insurance coverage. The facility failed to ensure the resident transport van was fully insured per state laws while being operated to transport residents to and from appointments and outings. The resident transport van was used 3-4 times a week on average for appointments, activity outings, etc. This failure could place residents at risk for injuries and hospitalizations from vehicle accidents that would not be covered under vehicle insurance. Findings Included: In an interview with the Business Office Manager on [DATE] at 1:14 pm she stated the facility tag renewal check had been returned in Mid-June due to missing proof of insurance. [...]
10 fire safety citations on file: 10 on February 29, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 3, 2024 | Fine | $8,827 |
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) | 3.17 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.35 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.71 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.06 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.76 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 56.1% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 66.7% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.49 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 3.36 on weekdays and 2.71 on weekends, 19% 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 2.60 in April to June 2025 to 3.17 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 | 3.17 | 0.35 | 3.36 | 2.71 | 0.0% | 1 of 90 | 59 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.99 | 0.32 | 3.11 | 2.67 | 1.4% | 0 of 92 | 59 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.94 | 0.47 | 3.10 | 2.52 | 0.4% | 0 of 92 | 61 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 2.60 | 0.40 | 2.75 | 2.22 | 4.7% | 0 of 91 | 67 |
| 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 | 14.0 | 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 | 2.5 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.0 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.7 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.7 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Avir at Madisonville'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. 22 eligible stays.
11.1% 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. 49 eligible stays.
6.8% 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. 25 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. 12 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 20 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 20 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this 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.
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: WEST WHARTON COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Gulf Coast LTC Partners, a group of 20 nursing homes averaging 2.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thompson, Johnny | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/14/2023 | |
| 600 Bacon St. Opco, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/01/2025 | |
| Freund, Nochum | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/01/2025 | |
| Jian, Peter | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/14/2023 | |
| Parker, Karen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/22/2024 | |
| 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 | 01/09/2026 | |
| Goldberger, Abraham | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 01/09/2026 | |
| Goldberger, Faigy | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 01/09/2026 | |
| 1424 Fallbrook 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 | |
| Jian, Peter | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/14/2023 | |
| Parker, Karen | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/22/2024 |
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.