3315 Cross Timbers Rd, Flower Mound, TX 75028 · Denton County · (972) 724-0996
120 certified beds, about 91 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1997
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675703 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 16, 2026, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 23 health citations since November 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $8,281 in the last three years; the largest was $8,281, and the latest is dated September 11, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.71 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.55 of those hours.
49.5% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Nexion Health, an affiliated group of 51 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 23 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide residents 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 two (Resident #15 and Resident #65) of six residents reviewed for call lights. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #15's call light was not underneath her bed pillows so that she could contact staff for assistance to remove bed covers for her. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #65's call light was accessible so that she could request her catheter to be emptied. This failure could place the residents at risk of falling, further injury, and unnecessary pain from not being able to call for help.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents receive proper treatment and care to maintain good foot health by providing foot care and treatment, in accordance with professional standards of practice, including to prevent complications from the resident's medical condition for 1 of 19 resident (Resident #8) reviewed for foot care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #8's toenails were trimmed. This failure had the potential to affect place residents by placing them at risk for poor personal hygiene, odors and a decline in their quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who is incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections based on the resident's comprehensive assessment for 1 of 3 residents (Residents #65) reviewed for urine incontinence/catheters. The facility failed to ensure Resident #65's catheter urine collection bags were emptied in a timely manner. This failure could place residents with catheters at risk of infections and loss of dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 2 (Resident #59 and Resident #61) of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #59 and Resident #61 received adequate oxygen to maintain their O2 sat above 92 % per physician's orders. This failure could place residents who receive oxygen therapy at risk of receiving inadequate oxygen support, which could result in serious harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide laboratory services to meet the needs of its residents for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for laboratory services. The facility failed to provide proper monitoring of Resident #4's immunodeficiency disorder by not completing routine specialized laboratory services to ensure that treatment remained effective. This failure could place residents at risk of a delay in medical evaluation and treatment, which could result in worsening of conditions or serious harm.
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 of 5 resident rooms (Resident #15's room) reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to remove and dispose of Resident #15's wound care trash and debris, which included a cup of gauze soaked with betadine and used wound care debris trash, from Resident #15's bedside table. This failure could place residents at risk of exposure to communicable diseases and infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, 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 1 of 8 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #1 that addressed her religious dietary restrictions. This failure could lead to the residents' personal choices and desires not being met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the interdisciplinary team determined if a resident was able to self-administer medications d for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for resident rights. The facility's interdisciplinary team failed to ensure Resident #1 was clinically appropriate to self-administer Systane ophthalmic eyedrops that were at the resident's bedside. The failure had the potential to place residents at risk for unsafe drug administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was provided with adequate supervision to prevent him from eloping from the facility on 05/05/25. He was found down the street away from the facility and was brought back by the local police department. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 05/05/24 and ended on 05/06/24. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. This failure could place residents who require supervision at risk of harm, severe injury, and possible death.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who required dialysis received such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 2 of 2 residents (Residents #26 and #245) reviewed for dialysis. The facility failed to ensure dialysis communication forms for Residents #26 and Resident #245 were received back after returning from dialysis treatment. This failure could place residents at risk of inadequate communication between the facility and dialysis center.
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 on one of three medication carts (200) and 2 of 19 residents (Residents #1, #3, and #190) reviewed for pharmacy services. 1. The facility failed to ensure the 200 Hall nurses' medication cart contained accurate narcotic logs for Resident #1 and #3. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #190's physician order for Lomotil was followed when Hospice Nurse G faxed the order on 01/20/25 to the facility, and it was not put in the system until 01/22/25. These failures could place residents at risk for medication errors, drug diversion, and delay in medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure when the pharmacist reported any irregularities to the attending physician and the facility's medical director and director of nursing, these reports were acted upon for 3 of 5 residents (Residents #35, #44, and #39) reviewed for medication regimen review. 1. The facility's failed to ensure the Pharmacist Consultant recommendation for Residents #35's antipsychotic medication, Quetiapine Fumarate (Seroquel), were was reviewed by the physician for the identified irregularities. 2. The facility's failed to ensure the Pharmacist Consultant recommendation for Residents #44's antipsychotic medication, Quetiapine Fumarate (Seroquel), were was reviewed by the physician for the identified irregularities. 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored securely for 1 of 25 residents (Resident #45) and had acceptable labeling for 2 of 4 medication carts (medication cart for Halls 200 and 300) reviewed for labeling and storage. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #45's 1 bottle of thymus 300 capsules, 1 bottle of thyroid 130 capsules, 1 bottle of Advil 200 mg, and 1 bottle of Tylenol 500 mg stored at the resident's bedside table were locked in a lock box or secured in the medication cart or medication room. 2. The facility failed to ensure insulin vials were dated after they were opened. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the therapeutic dose of medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility provided food that was palatable, for 1 of 3 observed meals (the lunch meal on 01/22/25) reviewed for dietary services. The facility failed to serve food that had a smooth, puddling like texture during the lunch meal on 01/22/25. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk of weight loss, altered nutritional status, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services, based on the comprehensive assessment, to prevent urinary tract infections for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #68) reviewed for urinary catheters. The facility failed to keep Resident #68's catheter tubing off the floor while the resident was in her wheelchair causing it to drag on the floor and be stepped on while she was being pushed down the hall. This failure could affect residents with catheters by placing them at risk for the development and/or worsening of urinary tract infections and injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure, based on a resident's comprehensive assessment, residents maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status for 1 of 19 residents (Resident #68) reviewed for nutrition. The facility failed to obtain Resident #68's weight upon her admission to the facility on [DATE] and failed to obtain weekly weights for the resident for four weeks, which resulted in the resident's weight loss not being identified. This failure placed residents at-risk for loss of weight and inadequate nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that PRN orders for antipsychotic drugs were limited to 14 days and could not be renewed, unless the attending physician or prescribing practitioner evaluated the resident for the appropriateness of the medication and resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs, to include adequate indications for its use for 2 of 2 residents (Residents #35 and #44) reviewed for unnecessary medications. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #35's PRN order for Seroquel (Quetiapine Fumarate) , an antipsychotic medication, did not extend beyond 14 days without an identified end date. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #44 did not receive the antipsychotic medication Seroquel (Quetiapine Fumarate) for sleep. This failure could place residents at risk for receiving unnecessary medications and adverse drug reactions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms were adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relays the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area for 1 of 19 residents (Resident #39) reviewed for resident call system. The facility failed to ensure Resident #39 had a working call light. This failure could have placed residents at risk of being unable to obtain assistance when needed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to report the results of all investigations to the State Survey Agency (HHSC), within 5 working days of the incident for 1 of 3 facility self-reported incidents (Incident Intake ID: 483847)reviewed for reporting to HHSC. The facility failed to submit a Provider Investigation Report to HHSC within 5 working days of reporting an incident involving allegations of quality of care, administration/personnel, and resident rights regarding Resident #1 on 02/12/24. This failure could place the residents at risk for not having investigations reported within the timeframe as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food safety in the facility's only kitchen for food storage. The facility failed to: 1. date, label, and seal food items in the dry storage area of the facility's kitchen. 2. [NAME] J, Dietary Aide K and Maintenance Director washed their hands and put on hair restraints prior to entering or directly after entering the kitchen. 3. keep the kitchen clean and sanitary and free from dirt and food debris and well maintained equipment and exit barrier. These failures could affect residents by placing them at risk of cross contamination and food-borne illness which could cause gastro-intestinal illnesses and increase in pests.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment with housekeeping services for a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior for 3 of 3 (Resident #1, Resident #48, and Resident #68) residents' rooms reviewed for environment. The facility failed to ensure Residents (#1, #48, and #68) had clean enteral pump IV poles. These failures could place all residents at risk of cross contamination from dirt and debris which could result in infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to review and revise care plan after each assessment for one (Residents #12) of six residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to complete/revise Residents #12's care plan as being a smoker. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving individualized care, which could result in a decline and function and mental well- being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 2 of 6 residents (Residents #20 and Resident #69) reviewed for accidents and hazards, in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure an accurate smoking assessment on Resident #20 was completed and followed. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #69's wheelchair was safe for him to use. These failures could place residents that use assistive devices and smoke, at risk of accidents, resulting in a decline in their physical condition, and injury.
13 fire safety citations on file: 8 on April 16, 2026, 4 on January 24, 2025, 1 on November 29, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| September 11, 2025 | Fine | $8,281 |
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) | 3.71 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.55 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.45 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.39 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.78 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 49.5% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 50.0% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.77 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.82 on weekdays and 3.45 on weekends, 10% 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 3.37 in April to June 2025 to 3.71 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 | 3.71 | 0.55 | 3.82 | 3.45 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 91 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.01 | 0.61 | 4.12 | 3.72 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 88 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.62 | 0.53 | 3.73 | 3.35 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 94 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.37 | 0.41 | 3.44 | 3.17 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 93 |
| 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.
Trains nurse aides: this home runs a state-approved CNA program (state list: HHSC Approved NATCEP Providers, as of October 6, 2026). A nursing home cannot charge aides it employs, or has offered a job, for state-approved training (42 CFR 483.152(c)). See Cross Timbers Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center CNA training on CareerFunded, our sister site for career training.
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 | 11.9 | 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 | 1.3 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.7 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.2 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.0 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 29.9 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.5 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Cross Timbers Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (46.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
46.2% 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. 78 eligible stays.
10.6% 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. 90 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. 49 eligible stays.
40.0% 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. 35 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. 47 residents counted.
3.6% 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. 47 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. 25 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: EASTLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Nexion Health, a group of 51 nursing homes averaging 2.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eastland Memorial Hospital District | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 04/01/2017 |
| Wright, Laban | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 11/10/2021 | |
| Wright, Laban | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/10/2021 | |
| Nexion Health at Flower Mound, Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2017 | |
| Fallon, John | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| Kirley, Francis | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| Lee, Brian | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| Oswald, John | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/22/2022 | |
| Pierce, Daniel | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/16/2021 | |
| Riner, Meera | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2017 |
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.