400 E Sayles St., Brenham, TX 77833 · Washington County · (979) 836-9770
128 certified beds, about 115 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1999
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675799 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 19, 2026, inspectors cited 11 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 30 health citations since October 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $21,887 in the last three years; the largest was $13,866, and the latest is dated February 19, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 2.71 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.30 of those hours.
44.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Wellsential Health, an affiliated group of 67 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 30 health citations on file.
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 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation.1. The facility failed to ensure foods in the reach in refrigerator located in the kitchen were labeled and dated to include the use by date or prepared/pulled date.2. The facility failed to ensure food was stored in a manner as to prevent contamination (sealed) in the walk-in refrigerator.3. The facility failed to ensure foods in the walk-in refrigerator were labeled and dated to include the use by date or prepared/pulled date.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility for 1 of 11 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's door and privacy curtain were closed during personal care to provide respect and dignity. This failure could place residents at risk of feeling uncomfortable, embarrassed, and a decreased quality of life.
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 are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 6 residents (Residents #1) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to have a comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #1 to address his discharge. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving care and services to meet individualized, behavioral, medical and nursing needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accidents and hazards as is possible for one resident (Resident #2) of six reviewed for mechanical lift transfers. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents as CNA B failed to transfer Resident #2 with a mechanical lift (assistive device) with another staff to assist as required. This failure puts residents at risk for harm, injury and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from involuntary seclusion for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for involuntary seclusion. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was not secluded when Resident #1 was placed in a vacant bathroom that was 60 degree Fahrenheit for approximately 5 hours. CNA A and LVN B knew Resident #1 was in the bathroom when the Surveyor found Resident #1 alone and cold. These failures resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation on 02/21/2026. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 5:20 AM. While the IJ was removed on 02/21/2026, the facility remained out of compliance at a severity level of no actual harm at a scope of isolated due to staff needing more time to monitor the plan of removal for effectiveness. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to properly store, prepare, and distribute food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen. The facility failed to properly store, label, and date all food items located in the facility's walk-in refrigerator, freezer and in the dry food pantry area on 02/17/2026, 02/18/2026 and 02/19/2026 . The facility failed to properly seal food product bags in the walk-in refrigerator to prevent exposure to air on 02/17/2026. The facility failed to properly seal food product containers in the dry food area on 02/18/2026. The facility failed to discard outdated food items located in the dry food pantry area on 02/18/2026 and 02/19/2026 . These failures could place residents who received meals from the kitchen at risk of foodborne illnesses. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident had the right to self-determination and the right to make choices about aspects of life in the facility that were significant to the residents for 3 of 5 residents (Resident #39, Resident #40, and Resident #104) whose care was reviewed. The facility failed to honor Resident #39 and Resident #40's request to eat at an earlier time because they preferred to dine in their room. The facility failed to provide Resident #104 who prefers to dine in her room, with a method of choosing her meal selections from the available daily menu. The facility failed to provide 6 confidential residents menus for their rooms per their request. This failure could place residents at risk of diminished feelings of self-worth and/or diminished quality of life. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review the facility failed to provide a private space for residents' confidential resident group meeting during the survey for seven of seven residents reviewed for resident council. The facility did not provide a private space for resident council meeting. This failure could place residents, who attended confidential resident group meeting, at risk of not being able to exercise their rights of being able to voice their grievances in private without uninvited staff being present.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure storage of drugs and biologicals used in the facility for 2 of 8 medication carts and 1 of 2 medications rooms observed for medication storage and labeling. The facility failed to ensure expired medications were removed from the medication carts and rooms. The facility failed to ensure loose medications were removed from the medication carts. This failure could place residents who received medications at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic effect of the medication. This failure could place residents who received medications at risk of receiving the wrong dose of medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to make sure that its menus documented any substitutions made to the menus on 4 of 4 halls reviewed for food and nutrition services. The facility failed to place the correct weekly menu in the dining hall on 2/18/2026 for lunch and dinner meals. This failure could place residents who eat food from the kitchen at risk of not knowing what was on the menu so they could request an alternate meal timely. Observation on 02/17/26 at 1:07 PM revealed the menu board for halls 300/400 did not display the breakfast, lunch, or dinner menu. Observation on 02/17/26 at 1:15 PM revealed the menu board for halls 100/200 did not display the breakfast, lunch, or dinner menu. Observation on 02/18/26 at 8:00 AM revealed the menu board for halls 100/200 did not display the breakfast, lunch, or dinner menu. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide each resident at least three meals daily, at regular times comparable to normal mealtimes in the community or in accordance with resident needs, preferences, requests, and plan of care for 7 (Resident #11, Resident #30, Resident #39, Resident #40, Resident #79, Resident #82, and Resident # 104) of 7 residents reviewed for timely meals on hall 200. The facility failed to provide lunch according to the lunch meal service schedule on 02/17/26 to Residents #39, #40, and #82. The facility failed to provide breakfast according to the breakfast meal service schedule on 02/18/26 to Residents #30 #39, #40, #79 and #82. The facility failed to provide lunch according to the lunch meal service schedule on 02/18/26 to Residents #30 #39, # 40, #79, #82 and #104. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents received services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of each resident's needs and preferences for 1 resident (Resident #114) of 8 residents reviewed for call lights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #114's soft pad call light device was within reach. This failure could place residents at risk for their needs not being met.
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 2 of 5 residents ( Resident #4 and Resident #129). The facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the PASARR Level 1 (PL1) screening for Resident # 4. The PASARR Level 1 screening did not indicate a diagnosis of mental illness, although the diagnosis ( major depressive disorder, single episode, unspecified ( experience major depressive episode with no history of previous depressive episodes - sadness, loss of interest in daily activities) was present upon Resident #4's admission date on 01/19/2026. The facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the PASARR Level 1 screening for Resident #129. [...]
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# 92, and Resident #127) reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #92's and Resident # 127's nails were cleaned and did not have any rough edges. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving services or care, diminished quality of life, and decreased self-esteem.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents received proper treatment and care to maintain good food health for one of nine residents (Resident #6) reviewed for foot care. The facility failed to schedule a podiatrist consultation for Resident #6 who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with long, jagged toenails. This failure could place residents at risk of diminished quality of life by not receiving care and services to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the facility remained free of accidents and hazards a for one of three housekeepers (Housekeeping Cart #1) reviewed for hazards. The facility failed to ensure Housekeeping Cart #1, with chemicals inside the compartments, was locked when unsupervised. The housekeeping cart was located on 300 hall in front of biohazard room. This failure could place residents at risk for injuries, illness, and hospitalization.
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 accommodation of resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 had her call light within reach on 12/18/2025. This failure could put residents at risk of being unable to contact staff in the event of an emergency or when assistance was needed with daily care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure the residents received services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of each resident's needs for 1 (Resident # 2) out of 5 residents reviewed for call lights. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 2's call light was within reach. This failure could affect all residents who needed assistance and could result in needs not being met.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews , the facility failed to ensure that the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's care plan was revised to reflect recent falls on 11/10/2024, 12/31/2024 and, 01/04/2025. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving appropriate care to meet their current needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview 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 promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for 5 of 7 residents (Resident #9, Resident #49, Resident #61, Resident #98 and Resident #106) reviewed for resident rights . 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #49, Resident #61, Resident #98 and Resident #106's were served their lunch tray at the same time as other residents at the same table for lunch on 11/19/2024 and 11/20/2024 . 2. The facility failed ensure CNA P spoke respectfully to Resident #9 when the resident attempted a self-transfer. These failures could place residents at risk of poor self-esteem and unmet needs and risk of skin breakdown.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had a right to personal privacy and confidentiality of his or her personal and medical records for 3 of 15 residents (Resident #26, Resident #58, and Resident # 69) residents reviewed for personal privacy. The facility failed to knock (CNA I) on Resident #26, #58, and #69's room when going into the residents' rooms. The deficient practice could place residents at risk of feeling like their privacy was being invaded or the facility was not their home.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment which allowed the resident to use his or her personal belonging to the extent possible for 3 of 10 reviewed on the 100 hall for resident rights. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #27, Resident #83, Resident #52 did not have visible dirt behind the beds, in the main walking area and on the furniture. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #83 and Resident #52's floors were not sticky while walking . These deficient practices place residents at risk of reduced functional use of the room, decreased resident's satisfaction with their environment and a lack of a homelike environment. Findings Include: An observation on 11/21/24 at 9:30 AM revealed Resident #83's RP spoke to the housekeeping aid. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene for five of ten residents (Resident #74, Resident #79, Resident #83, Resident #103 and Resident #279) reviewed for quality of life. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #74 , Resident #79 and Resident #83's nails were cleaned, trimmed, and did not have any rough edges on 11/19/2024. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #103 and Resident #279 received their showers. These failures could place residents at risk for not receiving adequate care and services to prevent infection, injury, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation , interview and record review the facility failed to employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service taking into consideration resident assessments, individual plans of care and the number, acuity, and diagnoses of the facility's resident population in accordance with the facility assessment for 1 of 1 main kitchen reviewed for sufficient staff and competencies . 1. The facility failed to provide proper training upon hire and regular in services to maintain standards of practice in the kitchen. This deficient practice could place residents at-risk of foodborne illness.
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 for one of one kitchen and one of one nourishment room reviewed for food and nutrition services . 1. The facility failed to ensure Dietary [NAME] S wore an effective hair restraint while in the kitchen. 2. The facility failed to ensure the Nourishment Room was maintained, ice was stored properly, and items were correctly labeled and dated. 3. The facility failed to ensure Dietary [NAME] O properly sanitized her hands between tasks . 4. The facility failed to ensure hot water was available for handwashing sinks. 5. The facility failed to ensure personal drinks and cleaning chemicals were separated from the cooking area. [...]
Inspectors wroteThe 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 ----- of ----- reviewed for infection control. 1. ADON and LVN did not don a gown before providing care to Resident #112, who was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions. 2. The facility failed to ensure a resident room did not have a urine saturated brief on the floor. These failures could place residents at risk of transmission of disease and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident was provided with functional furniture appropriate to the resident's needs, and individual closet space in the resident's bedroom with clothes racks and shelves accessible to the resident for 1 of 10 residents (Resident #19) reviewed for physical environment. The facility failed to ensure the top drawer of Resident #19's bed side table was unlocked allowing her access to her possessions. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of a lack of access to their personal belongings.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure data was encoded within 7 days after a facility completed a resident assessment for subject items upon a resident's transfer, reentry, discharge and death for 1 of 4 discharged residents (Resident #109) reviewed for data encoding and transmission. The facility failed to ensure Resident #109's Discharge MDS was encoded or transmitted as of 07/26/2024. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their assessments transmitted timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for pharmaceutical services. The facility failed to provide antibiotic medication to Resident #1 from 05/17/24 through 05/21/24. On 05/21/24, the facility sent Resident #1 to the ER by EMS. On 05/22/24, Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital for higher level of care. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The IJ began on 05/21/24 and ended 05/24/24. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving their medications, hospitalization, infection or death.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident is given the appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve his or her ability to carry out the activities of daily living for 1 of 27 residents (Resident #86) reviewed for positioning and meal assistance. The facility failed to ensure Resident #86 was monitored for assistance needs and failed to ensure she was positioned in a manner that would allow her to feed herself while in bed. This failure placed residents at risk for weight loss, ADL decline and poor self-esteem.
16 fire safety citations on file: 14 on February 19, 2026, 2 on November 21, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| February 19, 2026 | Fine | $13,866 |
| June 6, 2024 | Fine | $8,021 |
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) | 2.71 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.30 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.43 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.63 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.78 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 44.3% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 25.0% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.69 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 2.83 on weekdays and 2.43 on weekends, 14% 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 2.86 in April to June 2025 to 2.71 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 | 2.71 | 0.30 | 2.83 | 2.43 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 115 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.67 | 0.33 | 2.78 | 2.40 | 0.0% | 3 of 92 | 116 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.75 | 0.32 | 2.84 | 2.53 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 119 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 2.86 | 0.29 | 2.98 | 2.55 | 0.0% | 2 of 91 | 119 |
| 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.
| 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 | 13.7 | 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 | 1.5 | 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 | 5.7 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.6 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 16.2 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.9 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 4.2 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Brenham Nursing and Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (59.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
59.3% 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. 107 eligible stays.
10.4% 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. 125 eligible stays.
8.0% 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.
62.7% 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. 75 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. 99 residents counted.
3.0% 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. 99 residents counted.
100.0% this home
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. 42 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: OAKBEND MEDICAL CENTER. CMS links this home to Wellsential Health, a group of 67 nursing homes averaging 2.7 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oakbend Medical Center | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 02/28/2015 |
| Baird, Daniel | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/13/2021 | |
| Clapp, Barbara | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2021 | |
| Cortese, Daren | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/10/2021 | |
| Crayton, Tom | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/15/2013 | |
| Dorman, John | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/18/2022 | |
| Freudenberger, Joseph | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/19/2007 | |
| Gibson, Patricia | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/01/2021 | |
| Haley, Jeff | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 07/15/2016 | |
| Hughes, Ruston | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| King, Abby | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/23/2018 | |
| King, Elizabeth | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/17/2023 | |
| Mandelbaum, Elliot | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Pisani, Adam | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/15/2019 | |
| Popatia, Amirali | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 03/17/2020 | |
| Stuart, Julius | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/16/2023 | |
| Uthman, Edward | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/15/2008 | |
| Freudenberger, Joseph | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/19/2007 | |
| Oakbend Medical Center | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 02/28/2015 | |
| Regency IHS of Brenham, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 02/28/2015 | |
| Regency Integrated Health Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 02/28/2015 | |
| Dekowski, Donovan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/28/2015 | |
| Holder, Nicholas | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/25/2017 | |
| 400 East Sayles Street LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/28/2015 | |
| Csv Rhea Management Holdco, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/28/2015 | |
| Dwd Tx Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/28/2015 | |
| Jack and Nancy Dwyer Workforce Development Center Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/28/2015 | |
| Oakbend Medical Center | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/20/2025 | |
| Reg Leased Opco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/28/2015 | |
| Reg Operator Holdco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/28/2015 | |
| Regency IHS Clinical Consulting, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/28/2015 | |
| Regency IHS of Brenham, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/20/2025 | |
| Regency IHS Rehab LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/28/2015 | |
| Regency Integrated Health Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/20/2025 | |
| Regency Texas Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/28/2015 | |
| Dekowski, Donovan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/28/2015 | |
| Holder, Nicholas | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/25/2017 | |
| Obakpolor, Osahon | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Riels, Lauren | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Woodberry, Alencia | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 |
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.