507 E W M Watson Blvd, Daingerfield, TX 75638 · Morris County · (903) 645-3915
106 certified beds, about 65 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1998
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675755 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 3, 2026, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 53 health citations since December 2023, 7 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (6 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 6 fines totaling $314,175 in the last three years; the largest was $151,284, and the latest is dated May 26, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.95 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.29 of those hours.
33.9% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
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 53 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident's environment remained free of accidents and hazards for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accident hazards. 1. The facility failed to ensure CNA B performed a safe transfer for Resident #1 on 6/24/2026. 2. The facility failed to ensure CNA B, LVN A and CMA C performed a safe transfer on Resident #1 while assisting her from the floor to the bed and assisting her from the bed to the wheelchair on 6/24/2026. These failures could place residents at risk of injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that 5 of 6 residents AR2, AR3, AR4, AR5, and AR6 had a right to organize and participate in resident groups. The facility failed to provide regular resident council meetings without staff interference. This failure could place residents at risk of not having the freedom to voice their concerns in a resident meeting setting.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to meet each resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs for 4 of 21 residents reviewed for care plans. (Resident #63, Resident #45, Resident #5, Resident #28) 1. The facility failed to develop the comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #63 by not documenting their use of a psychotropic (Quetiapine Fumarate Oral Tablet 100 MG) medication. 2. The facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan for Resident #5's psychotropic medication Seroquel 150 mg every evening prescribed on 4/2/2026. 3. The facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan for Resident #28's psychotropic medication Zyprexa 5 mg every day and Zyprexa 7.5 mg every evening prescribed on 11/26/2025. 4. [...]
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 3 of 16 residents (Resident #2, Resident #26 and Resident #13) reviewed for infection control practices. 1. The facility failed to ensure LVN D donned a gown when prior to administering medications via G-tube (gastrostomy tube) (a medical device inserted through the abdomen directly into the stomach) for Resident #2 on enhanced barrier precautions on 6/2/26. 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the status for 3 of 21 residents reviewed for assessments. (Resident #1, #10, and #65) 1. The facility failed to ensure the MDS was appropriately coded for bed rails/restraints for Resident #1. She did not have bed rails. 2. The facility failed to ensure the MDS was appropriately coded for insulin for Resident #10. She did not take insulin. 3. The facility to ensure Resident #65's MDS assessment accurately reflected he was discharged with return anticipated. This failure could place residents at risk for decreased quality of care due to inaccuracy of assessments. 1. Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 6/2/26, indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female, with an original admission date ofadmitted [DATE]. She had diagnoses that included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene for 1 of 21 residents reviewed for ADLs (Residents #20.) The facility did not clean or trim Resident #20's fingernails. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving care and services to meet their needs which could result in poor care, risk for skin breakdown, feelings of poor self-esteem, lack of dignity and health.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to act upon the recommendations of the pharmacist report of irregularities and to ensure the attending physician documented in the resident's medical record that the identified irregularity has been reviewed and what, if any, action has been taken to address it in response to the pharmacist report for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #5) reviewed for (MRR) Medication Regimen Review. 1. The facility failed to act on signed GDR orders to decrease Seroquel (Quetiapine) (an atypical antipsychotic medication used to treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and depressive disorder) from 150 mg to 125 mg for Resident #5 on 3/31/2026. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments for 2 of 16 residents reviewed for storage of drugs and biologicals (Resident #2 and Resident #30). 1. The facility failed to securely store wound care chemicals for Resident #2. 2. The facility failed to ensure Hydrocortisone 1% anti-itch liquid was properly stored and locked in accordance with currently accepted professional standards for Resident #30. This failure could place residents at risk for adverse reactions, reduced therapeutic effects of medications and supplies, risk of having access to unauthorized medication and/or lead to harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents could call for staff assistance through a communication system which relays the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area from each resident's bedside for 1 of 16 residents (Resident #40) reviewed for resident call system. The facility failed to ensure Resident #40 had a call light button attached to the call light system. Resident #40 did not have a call light available on [DATE]. This failure could place residents at risk for a delay in assistance and decreased quality of life, self-worth, and dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were free from sexual abuse from a visitor for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was free from sexual abuse on 05/17/26 when Visitor A was found with his hand down Resident #1's pants. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The immediate jeopardy (IJ) began on 05/17/26 and ended on 05/17/26. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could place residents at risk of serious adverse psychosocial outcome such as fear, anxiety, shame or guilt, depression, withdrawal from activities, helplessness, low self-worth, and post-traumatic responses such as flashbacks, nightmares, or increased startle responses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to post the daily nurse staffing information with the current date, resident census, and numbers of staff actual hours worked at the beginning of each shift for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for nurse staffing. The facility failed to update and post the daily nurse staffing information from 04/20/2025-04/24/2025. This failure could affect residents, their families, and facility visitors by placing them at risk of not having access to information regarding the numbers of staff caring for the residents each shift and the facility census.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to conduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources were necessary to care for its residents competently during both day-to-day operations and emergencies for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for facility assessment. The facility failed to ensure the daily staffing needs were followed according to the facility assessment. This failure could place residents at risk of inadequate care or treatment and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had a right to personal privacy and confidentiality of medical records for 4 of 21 residents (Resident #8, Resident #9, Resident #51, and Resident #11) reviewed for privacy and confidentiality. 1. LVN C failed to ensure she closed the EMR of Resident #8, Resident #9, and Resident #51 before entering residents' room to obtain a blood sugar check and administer medications on 04/21/2025. 2. The facility failed to ensure MA G closed Resident #11's EMR before entering her room to administer her pain medication on 04/21/25. These failures could place residents at risk for low self-esteem, loss of dignity, and decreased quality of life due to medication administration record being accessible to others.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 3 of 21 (Resident #2, Resident #6, and Resident #9) residents reviewed for care plans. 1. The facility failed to develop a plan of care for Resident #2's smoking and use of a vape (an electronic cigarette). 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications for 1 of 3 resident (Resident #41) reviewed for enteral nutrition. The facility failed to ensure Resident #41's physician's order for her enteral feedings (a form of nutrition that is delivered into the digestive system as a liquid form via the feeding tube) indicated the type of feeding she was supposed to have been receiving. This failure could affect residents receiving enteral nutrition and hydration by placing them at risk of health complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that licensed staff were able to demonstrate the specific competencies and skill sets necessary to care for resident's needs for 3 of 3 staff (MA G, MA F, and LVN C) reviewed for competencies. The facility failed to ensure MA G, MA F, and LVN C were competent in medication administration. This failure could potentially affect residents by placing them at an increased and unnecessary risk of exposure to staff who lack the appropriate skills and competencies to provide safe care and minimize infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents were free of significant medication errors for 3 of 10 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. (Resident #'s 23, 31 and 41) 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #41's metoprolol (blood pressure medication) was not administered when her blood pressure was outside of the ordered parameters on 04/13/2025, 04/16/2025, and 04/21/2025. 2. The facility failed to ensure MA G and MA F did not administer Resident #23's metoprolol (blood pressure medication) on 04/07/2025 and 04/20/2025, when her blood pressure was not within the required parameters per the physician's order. 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled and stored in accordance with professional standards for 2 of 21 residents (Resident #'s 55 and 10), 1 of 5 medication carts (200 hall medication cart), and 1 of 1 medication storage rooms reviewed for drugs and biologicals. 1. The facility did not ensure Resident #55's Rexall (pain/ fever relief), Purzee (sleep supplement), and Melatonin (sleep aid) were properly safe and secured on 04/23/2025. 2. The facility failed to ensure a lock box in the Medication Room refrigerator with 2 bottles of Lorazepam (controlled medication for anxiety) was permanently affixed. 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide food that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 1 of 3 meals reviewed for palatability, attractiveness, and appetizing. The dietary staff failed to provide food that was palatable for 1 of 3 meals observed on 4/22/2025 (lunch) meal. The failure could place residents at risk of decreased food intake, hunger, and unwanted weight loss.
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 and 1 of 4 halls (Hall 400) reviewed for dietary services, in that: 1) The dietary staff failed to label and date all food items. 2) The dietary staff failed to discard expired food items. 3)CNA A did not sanitize her hands in between passing meal trays on the 400 hall. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop, implement, and maintain an effective training program for existing staff, consistent with their expected roles for 5 of 21 employees (Administrator, DON, ADON, LVN D, and LVN O) reviewed for required trainings. The facility failed to ensure the Administrator, DON, ADON, LVN D, and LVN O received HIV training upon hire on 10/01/2024. The facility failed to ensure the Administrator, DON, ADON, LVN D, and LVN O received Restraint training upon hire on 10/01/2024. These failures could place residents at risk for the inappropriate use of restraints and exposure to HIV.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility for 1 of 21 residents (Resident #3) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed ensure Resident #3's foley catheter drainage bag had a privacy cover on 04/21/25 and 04/22/25. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for loss of dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for 1 of 21 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for reasonable accommodations. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's call light was within reach while in bed on 04/21/2025. This failure could place residents at risk for a delay in assistance and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure each resident had the right to make choices about aspects of his or her life in the facility that were significant to the resident for 1 of 21 residents (Resident #11) reviewed for self-determination. The facility failed to ensure Resident #11 was provided showers instead of bed baths per her request. This failure could place residents at risk for being denied the opportunity to exercise his or her autonomy regarding things that were important in their life and decrease their quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' rights to formulate an advance directive for 1 of 21 residents reviewed for advanced directives. (Resident #41) The facility did not ensure Resident #41's code status was updated when the OOHDNR was signed by the physician on [DATE]. These failures placed the residents at risk of not having their end of life wishes honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure prompt efforts were made to resolve grievances for 2 of 21 residents (Resident #'s 8 and #26) reviewed for grievances. 1. The facility did not ensure a grievance was filed for Resident #8's missing black pants and green shirt. 2. The facility did not ensure a grievance was filed for Resident #26's missing black pants. These failures could place residents at risk for grievances not being addressed or resolved promptly.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, 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 grooming and personal hygiene for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for ADLs. (Resident #11 and 26) The facility failed to ensure Resident #11 and #26 received their showers as scheduled. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving services/care, decreased quality of life, and decreased self-esteem.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident with limited range of motion received appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion/and or to prevent further decrease in range of motion for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for range of motion. (Resident #10) The facility to ensure Resident #10's splint for his right-hand contracture (a permanent tightening of the muscles, tendons, skin, and surrounding tissues that causes the joints to shorten and stiffen) was being applied as ordered. This failure could place residents who had limited range of motion at risk of not attaining/or maintaining their highest level of physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible for 1 of 2 residents (Residents #2) reviewed for accident hazards. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 did not keep a vape (electronic cigarette) on her over bed table. The facility failed to have documentation that Resident #2 was evaluated for use of electronic cigarette use. This failure could place residents at an increased risk for injury.
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 and to restore continence to the extent possible for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #3) reviewed for treatment and services related to indwelling catheters. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3's foley catheter was secured on 04/22/2025. This failure could place residents at risk for urinary tract infections, catheter dislodgement and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents requiring respiratory care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practices for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #43 and Resident #23) reviewed for respiratory care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #43's oxygen was administered between 2-3 liters per minute via nasal cannula as prescribed by the physician. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #23's nasal cannula was stored properly. This failure could place residents who receive respiratory care at risk for developing respiratory complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who are trauma survivors receive 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 1 resident's (Resident #'s 50) reviewed for trauma-informed care. The facility did not ensure Resident #50 had a trauma screening that identified possible triggers when Resident #50 had a history of trauma. These failures could put residents at an increased risk for severe psychological distress due to re-traumatization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to establish a system of receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable accurate reconciliation and determine that drug records were in order and that an account of all controlled drugs were maintained and periodically reconciled for 1 of 21 residents (Resident #8) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure MA F accurately reconciled Resident #8's narcotic medication log when she administered Resident #8's acetaminophen-codeine (controlled medication used for pain) tablet on 04/22/25. This failure could place residents at risk for loss of prescribed medications, resident's safety, and drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to follow their own established smoking policy for the 1 of 2 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for smoking policies. The facility failed to follow the smoking policy and ensure Resident #2 had a safe smoking evaluation completed. This failure could place residents at risk of an unsafe smoking environment and an increased risk of injury related to smoking.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the right of the residents to be free from abuse for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #2, Resident #3) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to protect other residents from being kicked by Resident #1, when Resident #1 kicked Resident #3's feet when he walked by him on 1/12/25 at 5:20 am. The facility failed to recognize and put measures in place for Resident #1's increased behaviors from 01/09/2025 through 01/12/2025, which resulted in Resident #1 choking Resident #2. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 02/27/2025 at 1:40 PM. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 1:06 p.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision was provided to prevent accidents for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #2 and Resident #3) reviewed for accidents and supervision. The facility failed to increase supervision and implement interventions when Resident #1 displayed increased behaviors beginning on 1/9/25 to prevent resident to resident altercations. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received adequate supervision to prevent escalating behaviors towards other residents. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received adequate supervision after displaying increased behaviors beginning on 1/9/25 which resulted in Resident #1 choking Resident #2. This failure resulted in an identification of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) at 1:40 PM on 02/27/2025. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, to the administrator of the facility and toother officials for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #3) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the administrator and HHSC when Resident #1 kicked Resident #3's feet when he walked by him on 1/12/25 at 5:20 am. These failures could place residents at risk of abuse, physical harm, mental anguish, and emotional distress.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the necessary treatment and services, based on the comprehensive assessment and consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote the healing of pressure ulcers for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Resident # 37) The facility did not follow wound care ordered by the wound care specialist (NP) from 01/08/2024 to 02/20/2024 by dressing the wound with medical honey instead of the calcium alginate ordered by the wound care nurse practioner. The facility did not ensure Resident #37's alternating pressure mattress (LAL) was working properly to promote healing to her Stage III pressure ulcer and prevent the worsening of the wound. Resident #37 did not have the MD ordered alternating pressure mattress on the bed for 2 of 3 days observed. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation in that: 1. Dietary Aide L was not wearing appropriate facial covering restraint while preparing and serving lunch. 2. Hamburger meat was thawing improperly in the dish room sink without running water. 3. Ice maker buildup with brown residue on interior panel. 4. Grease buildup on the vent hood switch in the kitchen area. These deficient practices could place residents who received meals from the kitchen at risk for food borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow guidelines for mandatory submission of staffing information based on payroll data in a uniform format. Long-term care facilities must electronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, including information for agency and contract staff, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data in a uniform format according to specifications established by CMS for 1 of 4 quarters reviewed for payroll data information. (Quarter 4 2023). The facility failed to submit staffing information to CMS for the 4th quarter of the fiscal year 2023. This failure could place residents at risk for personal needs not being identified and met, decreased quality of care, decline in health status, and decreased feeling of well-being within their living environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each Minimum Data Set was electronically completed and transmitted to the CMS System within 14 days after completion for 4 of 18 (Resident #59, #62, #63, and #61) residents reviewed for MDS transmittal in that: Resident #59's, discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE] was not submitted as of 02/26/2024. Resident # 62's discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE] was not submitted as of 02/26/2024. Resident # 63's discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE] was not submitted as of 02/26/2024. Resident # 61's discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE] was not submitted as of 02/26/2024. This deficient practice 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 an ongoing program of activities in accordance with the comprehensive assessment to meet the interests and the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 18 residents reviewed for activities. (Residents #27) The facility failed to provide Residents #27 with consistent, scheduled activities. This failure could place residents at risk for not having activities to meet their interests or needs and a decline in their physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies, skills set and accreditations to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service department for 3 of 4 reviewed for qualified dietary staff. The facility failed to ensure the Dietary Manager H, Assistant Dietary Supervisor J and Dietary Aid K met the requirements for a food handling This failure could place residents at risk of not having their nutritional needs met and placing them at risk for food born illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 7 residents (Resident #3 and Resident #56) reviewed for foley catheters and for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for wound care (Resident #8 and Resident #37). 1 .The facility failed to ensure Resident #3 and Resident #56's foley catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) tubing and drainage bag/privacy bags were not dragging/touching the floor under their wheelchairs. 2. The facility failed to perform appropriate hand washing while wound care was performed for Resident #8 and Resident #37. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview , the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and provide care in a manner that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 1 of 18 residents reviewed for resident rights. (Resident #45) The facility failed to ensure Resident #45 was served lunch on 02/25/24 at the same time as others at his table. This failure could place residents at risk for decreased quality of life, decreased self-esteem and increase anxiety.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the notice to residents when changes in coverage are made to items and services covered by Medicare as soon as is reasonably possible provided to 2 of 3 residents (Resident #3 and Resident #42) reviewed for skilled Medicare services in that: Resident #3 and Resident #42 was not given a Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN) when discharged from skilled services prior to covered days being exhausted. This failure could place residents at risk of not being aware of changes to provided services not covered by Medicare and their financial responsibilities.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop, and implement a comprehensive care plan to meet the medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs for 2 of 20 residents reviewed for care plans (Resident #37, Resident #66). 1. The facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #37's wound care orders. 2. The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #66's right upper elbow contracture. These failures could place residents in the facility at an increased risk of a decline in physical or functional well-being, of not receiving necessary care or services, and having personalized plans developed to address their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary services to maintain good nurtrition, grooming, and personal and hygiene to residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living for 1 of 18 resident (Resident #16) reviewed for quality of life. The facility failed to removal facial hair from Resident #16 on his request 02/26/2024. This failure could result in a decrease in resident self-esteem, decrease social interaction and cause depression.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to assist residents in obtaining routine dental services and assist the resident with making appointment for 1 of 61 (Resident #13) residents reviewed for dental services. The facility failed to assist in providing routine dental services for Residents #13. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk of oral complications with their gums and teeth, causing pain, infections, and weight loss, resulting in a decreased physical and psycho-social well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to have a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors to ensure safe and sanitary storage, handling and consumption for 1 of 12 resident personal refrigerators reviewed for food safety. (Resident #4). The facility failed to have a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents. Resident #4's personal refrigerator contained decomposing orange and apple slices. This failure could place residents at risk for not understanding safe food storage practices related to food borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to be free from abuse or neglect for 3 of 7 residents reviewed for abuse. (Resident #1, Resident #3, and Resident #4) The facility failed to ensure Resident #4 was not verbally abused mentally abused, and harassed for the remainder of the night on 5/28/23 by LVN D The facility failed to educate staff on the de-escalation of an agitated or aggressive resident. The facility failed to identify harassment and intimidation as abuse for Resident #1 and Resident #3 when they complained about the care CNA A was providing. The facility failed to identify abuse when Resident #3 said CNA A intentionally caused her pain. CNA A was allowed to continue to intimidate and harass Resident #1 by going into her room and the shower room when she was receiving a shower. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure they implemented their abuse policy to ensure residents had the right to be free from abuse or neglect for 4 of 7 residents reviewed for abuse. (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, and Resident #4) The facility failed to follow their policy and ensure Resident #4 was not verbally abuse by LVN D and mental abused and harassed for the remainder of the night on 5/28/23. The facility failed to follow their policy and identify harassment, and intimidation for Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3 when they reported CNA A had intentionally tried to intimidate them. The facility failed to follow their policy when Resident #3 said CNA A intentionally caused her pain. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 12/27/23 at 3:00 p.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to have evidence violations were thoroughly investigated to prevent further abuse for 4 of 7 residents reviewed for abuse. (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, and Resident #4) The facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation when Resident #4 was not verbally abuse by LVN D and mental abused and harassed for the remainder of the night on 5/28/23. The facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation was conducted when residents complained of harassment, and intimidation for Resident #1, and Resident #3 when they reported CNA A had intentionally tried to intimidate them. The facility failed to complete a thorough investigation on abuse when Resident #3 said CNA A intentionally caused her pain. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 12/27/23 at 3:00 p.m. [...]
10 fire safety citations on file: 3 on June 3, 2026, 4 on April 24, 2025, 3 on February 27, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 26, 2026 | Fine | $12,750 |
| February 28, 2025 | Fine | $85,885 |
| February 27, 2024 | Fine | $151,284 |
| February 12, 2024 | Fine | $3,387 |
| January 22, 2024 | Fine | $7,903 |
| December 28, 2023 | Fine | $52,966 |
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) | 3.95 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.29 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.38 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.66 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.00 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 33.9% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.67 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 4.18 on weekdays and 3.38 on weekends, 19% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 7.5% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.51 in April to June 2025 to 3.95 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 | 3.95 | 0.29 | 4.18 | 3.38 | 7.5% | 0 of 90 | 65 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.36 | 0.34 | 4.71 | 3.46 | 5.5% | 0 of 92 | 61 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.79 | 0.27 | 5.09 | 4.00 | 4.8% | 0 of 92 | 54 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.51 | 0.27 | 4.84 | 3.69 | 4.1% | 0 of 91 | 58 |
| 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 | 20.9 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.0 | 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 | 15.6 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.1 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.1 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.8 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 19.1 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| 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 | 3.2 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Capstone Healthcare of Daingerfield'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. 20 eligible stays.
10.7% 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. 39 eligible stays.
5.9% 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. 35 eligible stays.
56.0% 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. 25 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. 40 residents counted.
6.6% 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. 40 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Texas98.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 7 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: FANNIN COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sanderson, Clark | Corporate director | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| Capstone-Daingerfield Opco, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 10/01/2024 | |
| Moman, Matthew | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| Kersey, Troy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| Singaperumal, Manavalan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2024 |
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.