900 College Ave, Borger, TX 79007 · Hutchinson County · (806) 274-9600
120 certified beds, about 69 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2013
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 676341 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 16, 2026, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 31 health citations since October 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $10,145 in the last three years; the largest was $10,145, and the latest is dated October 18, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 2.82 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.27 of those hours.
93.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Creative Solutions in Healthcare, an affiliated group of 149 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 31 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 the professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation. The facility failed to ensure freezer, refrigerator, and pantry items were properly stored, labeled, and dated. This failure could place residents at risk of food-borne illnesses.
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 1 (Resident #17) of 22 residents reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure Resident #17's catheter bag and catheter tubing were not on the floor on 07/14/26, 07/15/26, and 07/16/26. This failure could place residents at risk of UTIs and spread of bacteria.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident the right to receive written notice, including reason for change, before the resident's room or roommate in the facility is changed for 2 (Resident #5 and Resident #24) of 22 residents reviewed for resident rights.1. The facility failed to provide notice to Resident #5 or her representative before a roommate was moved into her room.2. The facility failed to provide notice to Resident #24 or his representative before he changed rooms. These failures could put residents at risk of being uncomfortable or disoriented in their home. Findings Included:1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to formulate an advance directive for 1 (Resident #43) of 22 residents reviewed for advance directives. The facility failed to ensure Resident #43's DNR was dated by the two witnesses thereby rendering it invalid. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their end-of-life wishes honored. Findings Included:Record review of Resident #43's admission record dated [DATE] revealed an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She was noted to be a DNR under the advance directive portion of the admission record. Record review of Resident #43's admission MDS assessment completed on [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 7 which indicated severely impaired cognition. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an assessment accurately reflected a resident's status for 1 of 22 residents (Resident #11) reviewed for accuracy of MDS assessments. The facility failed to address Residents #11's use of BiPAP therapy in her MDS assessment. This failure to accurately assess a resident could place residents at risk for inaccurate and incomplete MDS assessment which could result in residents not receiving correct care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights and that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 2 (Resident #11, and Resident #43) of 22 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. 1. The facility failed to address Residents #11's use of BiPAP therapy in her care plans. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #43's care plan reflected her DNR status rather than full code. These failures could place residents at risk of receiving inaccurate/incomplete care. Findings Included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who need respiratory care were provided with such care consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 (Resident #11) of 22 residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to address Residents #11's use of BiPAP therapy in her physician orders. This failure could place resident at risk for complications such as shortness of breath, confusion, respiratory failure, infection, and exacerbation of their condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that menus were followed, for 3 out of 3 residents that received therapeutic pureed diets (Residents #2, #9, #31), in that: The facility failed to ensure all three residents that received pureed diets received fried chicken on 07/14/2026 which was the posted lunch menu item and instead they were served pureed chicken strips. This failure had the potential to place residents at risk for inadequate nutritional consistency with the planned menu, decreased meal satisfaction, diminished dignity related to receiving a different meal than other residents and failure to receive meals prepared in accordance with the planned menu.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to, in accordance with professional standards and practices, maintain medical records on each resident that are accurately documented for 1 (Resident #9) of 22 residents reviewed for accuracy of medical records. The facility failed to ensure Resident #9's EHR did not contain active orders and care plan interventions for her to reside on the locked unit when she was residing on a different hall. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving necessary and accurate care/treatment due to inaccurate medical records. Findings Included:1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of any significant medication errors for one of seven residents (Resident #1) reviewed for medication administration. LVN A administered Resident #1's short acting insulin, instead of administering her long-acting insulin, which lead to an insulin overdose and hospitalization for observation for 24 hours. The failure could place residents who receive insulin medications at an increased risk for complications such as increased blood glucose levels, change in cognition, and an exacerbation of symptoms and disease process.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan within 7 days after completion of the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 9 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care plan timing. The comprehensive care plan for Resident #1 was not developed within 7 days after the completion of the comprehensive assessment. The failure could place residents at risk of receiving care that is not person-centered and/or is inadequate to meet the needs identified during the comprehensive assessment. Findings Included: [...]
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 promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for 1 (Resident #1) of 7 residents and 3 anonymous residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to prevent RN A from referring to residents in the secured unit as feeders when referring to residents that need assistance in feeding. This failure could negatively impact the self-esteem, self-worth, and identity of residents who need assistance with eating. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 3 (Resident #10, Resident #25, and Resident #34) of 16 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessment. 1. The facility failed to accurately code Resident #10's wound/infection status. 2. The facility failed to accurately code Resident #25's tobacco use status. 3. The facility failed to accurately code Resident #34's IV medication status. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving necessary care and/or consideration. Findings Included: 1. Record review of Resident #10's admission record dated 05/20/25 revealed an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of: infection following a procedure, deep incisional surgical site, subsequent encounter with an onset date of 01/02/2024. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to have sufficient nursing staff with the appropriate skills set to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of each resident for 1 of 1 locked unit. The facility failed to have sufficient staff on the locked unit. This failure could place residents at risk of harm due to neglect. Findings Included: During an observation on 05/19/25 beginning at 11:50 AM 15 residents were noted to be residing on the locked unit. 6 residents were in the common area with one staff member. Two other staff members were observed on the locked unit. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed for 1 of 2 lunch meals reviewed for menus and nutritional adequacy on 5/19/25 in that: A. Dietary staff did not serve cherry fried pies to 17 residents on a mechanical soft diet on 5/19/25 (Residents # 2,11,12,15, 19, 22, 26, 32, 38, 40, 43, 45,47, 52, 56, 59, and 64). B. Dietary staff did not serve pureed bread, pureed fried cherry pie, pureed potato salad or pureed bread butter pickles and onion during the noon meal on 5/19/25 for 2 residents reviewed for pureed diets (Resident #s 23 and 53). These failures could place residents who eat mechanical foods and residents who eat pureed foods at risk of not having their nutritional needs met.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to refer all residents with newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition for level II resident review upon a significant change in status assessment for 2 (Resident #10 and Resident #57) of 16 residents reviewed for PASRR. 1. The facility failed to refer Resident #10 for PASRR level II assessment, to the state-designated authority, upon receipt of a major depressive disorder recurrent severe diagnosis. 2. The facility failed to refer Resident #57 for PASRR level II assessment, to the state-designated authority, upon receipt of a psychotic disorder with delusions and/or paranoid schizophrenia diagnoses. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving necessary care and/or services. Findings Included: 1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who need respiratory care were provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 (Resident #27) of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to store Resident #27's nasal cannula properly. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk for respiratory compromise and associated complications such as shortness of breath, confusion, respiratory failure, infection, and exacerbation of their condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the right to be free from misappropriation of property for 1 (Resident #1) of 8 residents reviewed for misappropriation of property. The facility failed to prevent a diversion (misappropriation) of Resident #1's Tylenol #3 tablets (used to treat pain) for a total of 10 tablets. This failure could place residents at risk for decreased quality of life, misappropriation of property, increased/uncontrolled pain, and dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to protect each residents right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility failed to protect Resident #1 from emotional abuse by Resident #2 on 09/24/24 in spite of Resident #2 emotionally abusing and possibly physically abusing Resident #1 on 09/22/24. The noncompliance was found to be Past Non Compliance (PNC). The noncompliance began on 09/22/2024 and ended on 09/26/2024 The facility corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. This failure could place residents at risk of continued and/or unrecognized abuse or neglect. Findings Included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property, for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility failed to report the emotional and possible physical abuse of Resident #1 by Resident #2 as per the facility's Abuse/Neglect policy. The noncompliance was found to be Past Noncompliance (PNC). The noncompliance began on 09/22/24 and ended on 09/26/24. The facility corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. This failure could place residents at risk of continued and/or unrecognized abuse or neglect. Findings Included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure efforts were made to resolve resident grievances, for one (Resident #1) of 6 residents reviewed for grievance resolution. The facility did not issue a written decision to Resident #1 who filed a grievance. This failure could place residents at risk for feeling that their voices were not being heard or taken seriously and could cause feelings of worthlessness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment in safe operating condition for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for environment. The facility failed to ensure the water heater in the kitchen was functioning. This failure could place residents at risk of contracting food borne illness due to a lack of readily available hot water in the kitchen for use in sanitizing cooking dishes and surfaces and washing hands. Findings Included: During an observation in the kitchen on 03/25/24 at 10:38 AM 3 large pots were observed with water in them on the stove to boil and use to sanitize the dishes used for cooking breakfast. Kitchen staff were observed lifting the pots of boiling water from the stove and dumping them into the sink. The pots were approximately 2 feet tall and 1.5 feet in diameter. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident had the right to the 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 and or other residents for 5 (Resident #2, Resident #8, Resident #18, Resident #29, and Resident #46) of 18 residents reviewed for reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences. The facility failed to provide residents with silverware and dishes for 2 weeks, instead providing plasticware and styrofoam. This failure could lead to residents having difficulty eating and thereby becoming frustrated and/or not receiving necessary nutrition. Findings Included: 1. [...]
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 interaction both independence and interaction in the community for 2 of 2 residents (Residents #2 and #8) reviewed for activities. 1. The facility failed to ensure activities were consistently provided on the weekends to Residents #2 and #8. 2. The facility failed to provide activities that were important to men in the facility and that was important to Resident #2 . [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to be treated with respect and dignity including the right to retain and use personal possessions including furnishings, and clothing, as space permitted, unless to do so would infringe upon the right or health and safety of other residents for 1 (Resident #24) of 18 residents reviewed for the right to retain and use personal possessions. The facility failed to receive permission from Resident #24 before staff threw away the resident's personal property. This failure could place residents at risk of having their rights infringed upon and lead to residents wishes being disrespected. Findings Included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to immediately inform the resident; consult with the resident's physician; and notify, consistent with his or her authority, the resident representatives when there is an accident involving the resident which results in injury and has the potential for requiring physician intervention or a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, psychosocial status for 1 (Resident #24) of 18 residents reviewed for notification. The facility failed to ensure Resident #24's resident representative was immediately notified when the resident had a change in condition that required she be transported via ambulance to the hospital. This failure could result in residents not having the comfort and company of their families during traumatic times. Findings Included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for one of eighteen residents (Resident #6) reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident #6's MDS accurately reflected the resident's hospice status. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their needs identified and not receiving necessary care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who needs respiratory care, including tracheostomy care and tracheal suctioning, is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the resident's goals and preferences for 1 (Resident #30) of 18 residents reviewed for respiratory care. Facility failed to ensure Resident #30 received oxygen according to physician orders. This failure could place residents at risk for receiving oxygen at the wrong rate which could lead to hypercapnia (too much carbon dioxide in the blood), pulmonary oxygen toxicity (damage to the lung lining tissues and air sacs), hypoxemia (low levels of oxygen in the blood, decreasing the oxygen supply to vital organs), and shortness of breath. Findings Included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable and in accordance with State and Federal laws, were stored in locked compartments under proper temperature controls, and permitted only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for 1 of 2 Medication Carts (Medication Cart #2) reviewed for pharmacy services . The facility failed to ensure there were no loose medications in Medication Cart #2. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving an accurate dose of medication and medications not being maintained at their best therapeutic level .
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain and accurately document medical records on 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents housed in the secure unit of the facility. The facility obtained a physician's order but failed to put the order in Resident #1's chart. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving care that is substandard, unable to meet their needs, and inaccurate medical records. Findings Included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 10/26/23, revealed an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1's diagnoses included but are not limited to unspecified dementia, major depressive disorder, blindness in left eye, and polyneuropathy (damage or disease affecting peripheral nerves). [...]
1 fire safety citation on file: 1 on July 16, 2026.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 18, 2024 | Fine | $10,145 |
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) | 2.82 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.27 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.55 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.53 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.01 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 93.3% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 100.0% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.81 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 2.92 on weekdays and 2.55 on weekends, 13% 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 2.56 in April to June 2025 to 2.82 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 | 2.82 | 0.27 | 2.92 | 2.55 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 69 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.00 | 0.33 | 3.13 | 2.66 | 0.0% | 2 of 92 | 65 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.75 | 0.38 | 2.90 | 2.38 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 67 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 2.56 | 0.25 | 2.69 | 2.24 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 65 |
| 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 | 21.5 | 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 | 4.7 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.9 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.5 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 16.3 | 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 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Caprock Nursing & Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (58.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
58.2% 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. 72 eligible stays.
11.9% 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. 80 eligible stays.
7.1% 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. 42 eligible stays.
56.5% 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. 46 residents counted.
4.6% 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. 65 residents counted.
1.7% 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. 65 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. 36 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: LIBERTY COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO 1. CMS links this home to Creative Solutions in Healthcare, a group of 149 nursing homes averaging 2.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liberty County Hospital District No 1 | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 06/01/2022 |
| Fregia, Milton | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/07/2022 | |
| Gardner, Shannon | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/22/2022 | |
| Gardzina, Margaret | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 02/26/2024 | |
| Henry, Paul | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/09/2009 | |
| Stratton, Charles | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/01/2005 | |
| Huggins, Linda | Corporate director | Individual | 06/01/2022 | |
| Willig, Zachary | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Stratton, Charles | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/01/2005 | |
| Borger I Enterprises LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/01/2022 | |
| Blake, Gary | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2022 | |
| Blake, Malisa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2022 | |
| Borger I Enterprises LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/01/2022 | |
| Blake, Gary | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2022 | |
| Rankin, Ron | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/11/2025 | |
| Schmidt, Steven | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/11/2025 |
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.