2000 N Main St., Midland, TX 79705 · Midland County · (432) 686-1898
106 certified beds, about 83 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2003
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675985 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 19, 2025, inspectors cited 4 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 48 health citations since March 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $9,281 in the last three years; the largest was $9,281, and the latest is dated May 6, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 2.95 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.44 of those hours.
41.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Focused Post Acute Care Partners, an affiliated group of 25 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 48 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving of abuse were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, to other officials (including to the State Agency) for two (Resident #1and Resident #2) of 4 residents reviewed for reporting an allegation of abuse, in that: The facility failed to report, within 2 hours, an allegation of physical altercation between Resident #1 and Resident #2 that occurred on 05/24/2026. This failure could result in unreported incidents of abuse and lead to physical and psychological injuries to residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to have evidence that all allegations of abuse were thoroughly investigated for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #1 and #2) reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility did not investigate an incident in which Resident #1 was in an alteration with Resident #2 on 05/24/2026. This failure could place residents at risk for continued abuse/neglect and could lead to a diminished quality of life and psychosocial harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet, attain, and/or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 4 (Residents #2) residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility failed to have a care plan for Resident #2's regarding refusals of medications. The failure could place residents at risk for not receiving appropriate care and supervision.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident has a right to secure and confidential personal and medical records for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for confidentiality. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's face sheet and personal information was not given to a hospice provider without the permission of the resident's guardian. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of having their medical information being unnecessarily exposed and their personal privacy violated.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility was free of pests and rodents for one, Resident #2, of five residents reviewed for environmental concerns. 1. The facility failed to ensure the facility was free of mice. This failure could place residents at risk of having pests in their rooms and insect bites.
Inspectors wroteAn incident investigation (Intake#1029204, 1030702, 1035046, 1046030, 1046503, 1054016) was conducted on 12/12/25. The census was 78. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for environmental concerns. The facility failed on 12/10/2025 when Hall B had Residents rooms and hallways that was upswept with food particles and trash on the floors throughout the building, broken window blinds was in resident's rooms, and there was broken floor tiles in resident's rooms. These failures could affect the residents and placed them at risk of living in an unsafe and uncomfortable environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation and food storage. - The facility failed to ensure stored foods were properly stored, labeled, and dated.- The facility failed to ensure temperatures were checked for food items prior to serving.- The facility failed to ensure food was not handled with bare hands.- The facility failed to ensure residents received preferred portion sizes.- The facility failed to ensure that spoiled food items were disposed of properly.- The facility failed to ensure dietary staff used facial hair restraints properly. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to prepare food that was safe, palatable and attractive for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food and nutrition services. The facility failed to ensure Dietary Aide (DA) C followed the puree recipes when preparing pureed food items. The facility failed to deliver food with an appetizing taste for the lunch meal on 08/02/2025. This failure could place residents at risk of decreased food intake, hunger, unwanted weight loss, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public for 3 of 3 resident smoking areas reviewed for environmental concerns. The facility failed to ensure adequate cleaning in the designated smoking areas. This failure placed the staff and visitors at risk of an uncomfortable and unsafe environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly for 2 of 3 dumpsters in that: The facility failed to ensure the dumpster lids were closed on 2 of 3 dumpsters and the area surrounding the dumpsters were free of garbage and debris. These failures could affect residents who resided in the facility and the public by placing them at risk of exposure to germs, disease, and an environment which could attract pests and rodents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to treat residents with respect, dignity and care for each resident in a manner that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 2 of 7 residents (Resident # 63 and #136), and 5 residents in the confidential group interview. CNA F told Resident #63 to urinate in her brief instead of going to the bathroom per Resident # 63's request. Staff were on their cell phones while providing direct care to residents (including Resident #136). This failure resulted in a diminished quality of life for the identified residents and could affect additional residents by causing a loss of self-esteem and increased isolation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that drug records were in order and that an account of all controlled drugs were maintained, for 8 of 10 Residents (#5, #11, #34, #45, #56, #62, #63 and #186) and 1 of 2 medication carts inspected for medication reconciliation. Medication Aide (MA) A did not document the administration of a controlled medication on the individual controlled medication records after administering the medication. This failure could place residents at risk of under dose, overdose and drug diversion.
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 and each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 of 5 (Resident #48) residents reviewed for smoking safety. The facility failed to ensure Resident #48's lighter, and cigarettes were not stored on their person. These failures could affect residents who smoke by putting them at risk of bodily harm or physical impairment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure medical records, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, were maintained on each resident that were accurately documented for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #8) reviewed for medical records. The facility failed to ensure documentation was completed for Resident #8's emergency room visit on 05/28/2025. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of having inaccurate records due to incomplete documentation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible and each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents and supervision, in that: Resident #1 eloped on 11/19/24 out of the facility and across a 35-mph street and was found at a school 0.8 miles away 2 hours later by police. An IJ was identified on 5/2/25. The IJ template was provided to the facility on 5/2/25 at 12:44 PM. While the IJ was removed on 5/2/2025 at 8:35 PM. The facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and severity level of no actual harm with a potential for more than minimal harm that is an immediate jeopardy due to facility's need to evaluate the plan of removal. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to provide notification of a resident's discharge to ensure that appropriate information is communicated to the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for 1 or 6 residents (Resident #2 ) reviewed for transfer or discharge. The facility failed to ensure that: 1. Resident #2's discharge notification was sent to the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. This deficient practice could affect resident's safe discharge planning by missed notification to the proper authorities.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person -centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a residents medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for supervision related care plans. 1. The facility failed to ensure a care plan was updated for Resident #1's elopements . These failures could place residents at risk for not receiving necessary care and services or having psychosocial care needs identified.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices, for 1 Resident (#1) of 5 residents whose care was reviewed, in that: The facility failed to complete weekly skin assessments from 07/16/2024 to 09/23/2024 on Resident #1 at a minimum of every 7 days per facility policy. The facility failed to assess and provide treatment on 09/23/2024 when there were no orders for Edema on bilateral lower legs for Resident #1 observed with seeping serosanguinous fluid. This failure could place residents for not being provided with adequate care and treatment and place them at risk for skin breakdown, infection, pain, and a decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary comfortable, environment for residents, staff, and the public for 6 of 6 hallways reviewed, including the dining room and kitchen for physical environment. The facility failed to ensure the floors were free of dirt and crumbs in the 6 hallways, dining room, and the kitchen on 09/19/2024 and 09/24/2024 that had dirt and food crumbs along the walls at the intersection between the floor and wall. This failure could the residents by placing them at risk for diminished quality of life due to the lack of a well-kept environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that are complete and accurately documented for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for signing self in and out of the facility. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 signed in and out of the facility when he left for pass. Resident #1 failed to sign out of the facility on 08/08/2024 and 08/17/2024. He failed to sign back into the facility after being out on pass on 08/02/2024, 08/05/2024, 08/11/2024, 08/20/2024, 08/30/2024, 09/01/2024, 09/04/2024, 09/06/2024, and 09/19/2024. This failure could place residents for not being provided with adequate care and treatment when signed out of the facility and evaluated when residents return to the facility.
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 to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #2) reviewed for infection control practices, in that: CNA A and Hospitality Aid B failed to perform proper hand hygiene after glove changes while providing incontinence care to Resident #2 on 09/19/2024. This failure could place residents at risk for the spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet, attain, and/or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 3 of 5 residents (Resident #2, #3, and 4) reviewed for care plans in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 had a care plan in place to address EBP addressing his pressure ulcers or catheter. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3 had a care plan in place to address EBP addressing his catheter, feeding tube, or pressure ulcer. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4 had a care in place to address EBP addressing his catheter and pressure injury. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 3 of 4 residents (Residents #2, #3, and #4) reviewed for Enhanced Barrier Protections (EBP) for infection control practices. The facility failed to ensure Residents #2, #3, and #4 were identified for and had implemented Enhanced Barrier Precautions. This failure could place resident's risk for cross contamination and the spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who required dialysis (treatment that filters water and waste from the blood when the kidneys are no longer able to do so) received such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #1) reviewed for dialysis. The facility failed to ensure post-dialysis assessments were completed for Resident #1 after returns from dialysis treatment. This deficient practice could affect residents who received dialysis treatments and placed them at risk for complications and not receiving adequate care and treatment to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to post in a form and manner accessible and understandable to residents and resident representatives a list of names, addresses (mailing and email, and telephone numbers of all pertinent State agencies and advocacy groups, such as the State Survey Agency, the State licensure office, the protection and advocacy network, home and community based service programs, and the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit for 1 of 1 buildings reviewed for postings The facility failed to ensure the number to HHS Long Term Care Regulatory (state survey and certification agency) number for filing grievances, or complaints or suspected violations of state or Federal violations was posted. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet, attain, and/or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 5 of 10 (Residents # 33, #37, #72, #79 and #137) residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #33 dated 01/20/24 had a care plan in place regarding his urinary catheter. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #37 had a care plan in place regarding her PEG (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy) tube. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #72 had a care plan in place regarding his urinary catheter. 4. The facility failed to ensure Resident #79 had a care plan in place for significant, unplanned weight loss. 5. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and that the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible for all of the residents in the facility's 3 secured units (Hall C, E and F ) reviewed for accidents and supervision. The facility failed to ensure the secure units exit doors at the end of each hall had alarms to indicate and alert staff that the residents were going outside to the secure unit patios on 04/09/24 through 04/11/24. This failure placed residents at risk of injury due to not being supervised and placed at risk of accidents/hazards.
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 the facility's only kitchen. The facility failed to: Provide a clean kitchen. Ensure food items in the freezer were labeled and dated. Ensure food items in dry pantry were sealed appropriately. This deficient practice could affect residents who receive meals prepared from the kitchen and served by facility staff at risk for food borne illness and cross contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility was free of pests and rodents for one of one facility reviewed. The facility failed to ensure the facility was free of rodents. This failure could place the residents at risk of unsanitary and unsafe conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the dignity right was respected for 2 of 20 residents (Resident#33 and Resident #72) reviewed for privacy and dignity. Resident #33 and Resident #72 had urinary catheter drainage bags that were not covered with privacy bags, and the urine content of the bag was visible to other residents, visitors, and facility employees. This failure placed residents at risk for violation of privacy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that ensure the accurate administering of all drugs to meet the needs of the residents, for 1 of 4 medication carts reviewed for pharmacy services, in that: . The medication cart used for halls A, B and C had two insulin pens dated (03/06/24) that had expired as indicated by the manufacturer's recommendations since they were only good for 28 days after being opened. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving medications that were expired and not produce the desired effect.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review , the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys, for one medication carts (the medication cart for halls A, B and C) of four medication carts reviewed for drug storage. The facility failed to ensure medication carts were left unlocked and unsupervised on 04/09/24. These failures could place clients at risk for drug diversion or accidental ingestion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for environment. The facility failed to ensure that wastewater was not discharged onto the ground outside the main entrance into the parking lot on 04/09/24 and 04/10/24. This failure could place the residents, staff, and the public in danger of contracting illness and disease from vector borne transmission of infectious bacteria and viruses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 4 of 8 residents (Resident #1, Resident #4, Resident #6, and Resident #7) reviewed for homelike environment. The facility failed to provide needed housekeeping and maintenance for the dining room, hallways, for Resident #1, Resident #6, and Resident #7. The facility failed to keep sound levels comfortable for Resident #4 and Resident #7. These failures could place the residents at risk of increased anxiety, unsanitary conditions, and uncomfortable conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility was free of pests and rodents for one of one facility reviewed. The facility failed to ensure the rooms of residents and the dining room tables were free of pests and rodents. This failure could place the residents at risk of unsanitary and uncomfortable conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed in that: The facility failed to discard expired food items. The facility failed to maintain effective pest control in the kitchen. The facility's kitchen staff failed to practice proper hand hygiene. These deficient practices affected residents who received meals prepared from the kitchen and placed them at risk for food borne illness and cross-contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility was free of pests and rodents 1 of 1 Kitchen, 1 of 1 Dining Room, Secured Unit E, Secured Unit F, room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER]: The facility failed to ensure an effective pest control program was in place to keep cockroaches out of Dining Room and resident rooms. The facility failed to ensure an effective pest control program was in place to keep mice out of kitchen pantry. These failures could place residents at risk of potential spread of infection, cross-contamination, food-borne illness, and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the resident's had the right to be informed of the risks, and participate in, his or her treatment which included the right to be informed in advance, by the physician or other practitioner or professional, of the risks and benefits of proposed care, of treatment and treatment alternatives or treatment options and to choose the alternative or option he or she preferred, for 5 of 9 residents (Residents #21, #28, #37, #135, #235) reviewed for resident rights . Resident #21 had no consent for the antipsychotic medication dextromorphan-quinidine. Resident #28 had no consent for the antianxiety medication buspirone, antidepressant medication duloxetine, the antipsychotic medication olanzapine, or the antidepressant medication trazodone. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure residents received services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of each resident's needs for 12 of 29 (Residents #5, #16, #18, #21, #23, #24, #25, #32, #39, #44, #65, #68) resident rooms reviewed for call lights. Residents call lights were on the floor, behind furniture, or coiled on the wall unit, out of reach while residents were in their room. This deficient practice could affect residents who need assistance with activities of daily living of not having needs met. Findings Include: Observation made on 3/6/23 beginning at 10:51 a.m. revealed Resident #65's call light cord was on the floor out of reach of the resident. The resident sat on her bed. Observation on 03/06/23 at 3:15 PM revealed in Resident #9 there was no place to tie string to the switch (they would be unable to use call light). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 2 of 2 resident observed for mechanical transfers (Resident #38 and #68). CNA L and CNA M did not lock Resident #68's wheelchair prior to completing a mechanical lift transfer CNA N and CNA O did not lock Resident #38's wheelchair prior to transfer and did not correctly compete a two-person transfer. These failures could place residents who required two-person assistance during transfers at risk for injuries.
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 residents in 1 of 1 medication rooms reviewed for storage in that: 1. 6 boxes Acetaminophen Suppositories, containing 12 Rectal suppositories, 650 mg each with the expiration date of 01/2023. 2. One box of 10SG Urinalysis Reagent Strips, Quantity of 100, with the expiration date of 10/14/2022. 3. Two 5 oz (148 mL) bottles of Safe n Simple Ostomy Skin Barrier Powder Lot # 190312 with the expiration date of 03/12/2022. 4. One ready to use, with tubing attached (spiked ) IV bag on the countertop with no labeling. These failure could place residents at risk of receiving medications that were expired and not produce the desired effect.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored in permanently affixed compartments during medication storage inspection for 2 of 2 medication carts reviewed for storage in that: The facility failed to ensure that all medications were properly stored in 2 of 2 medication carts. This failure could result in a drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that the quality assessment and assurance committee developed and implemented appropriate plans of actions to correct identified quality deficiencies for the memory care units on halls 2 of 2 halls whose environment was reviewed in that: The QAPI committee, which included the Administrator, DON, Medical Director, and the Clinical Reimbursement Director, did not identify quality deficient practices regarding Resident Room #'s 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 42, and 46 where the physical environment had not improved from past noncompliance. These deficient practices could affect the residents who were observed on the Memory Care Units, (Halls E/F). Findings Include: During observation on 03/06/2023 at 9:44 AM -10:45 AM Hall F revealed: [...]
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 essential equipment. The facility's dishwasher was leaking and the kitchen floor drain was clogged causing 1 inch of contaminated water on floor from dishwasher and floor drain contaminants . This failure could place residents at risk of being exposed to slips and falls from 1 inch of standing water in kitchen and exposure to contaminated water and contaminated residual from dishwater overflow from drain.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure resident rooms were designed or equipped to assure full visual privacy for each occupied resident room for 17 rooms (Rooms 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26 here) of 48 rooms observed, in that: a). Semi-Private rooms did not provide full visual privacy (Rooms 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, 14, 17, 20, 21, 23 and 26). b). Rooms did not have curtains at all (rooms [ROOM NUMBER]). c). Rooms did not have blinds or curtains exposing the resident near the window (Rooms 16, 20, 23). These failure could affect residents by placing them at risk for loss of privacy and dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public for 37 of 48 rooms and 37 residents (#1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 32, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 47, 51, 52, 54, 55, 65, 66, 68, 70, 73, 75, 79, 235 & 236) reviewed for physical environment. Resident rooms and other areas accessible to the residents had drywall damage, missing baseboards, damaged ceilings and restrooms in need of repair or had furniture that was not in good repair or worn to the point of not being sanitizable. The main dining room's furniture was worn, in unsafe condition, and not-santizable. The lobby area's furniture was worn to threads. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive assessments were completed within 14 calendar days after admission as required for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #235) reviewed for admission assessments. Resident #235 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and did not have a completed admission/comprehensive MDS assessment within 14 days following admission to the facility. This failure could result in newly admitted residents not receiving the proper care required to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet, attain, and/or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #28) reviewed for care plans in that: Resident #28 did not have a care plan in place to address her diagnoses of dementia, fibromyalgia, or pain management. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk of not receiving individualized care and services to meet their needs.
16 fire safety citations on file: 2 on June 19, 2025, 13 on April 11, 2024, 1 on March 9, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2025 | Fine | $9,281 |
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) | 2.95 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.44 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.58 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.16 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.34 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 41.2% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 40.0% | 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 3.10 on weekdays and 2.58 on weekends, 17% 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 2.89 in April to June 2025 to 2.95 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 | 2.95 | 0.44 | 3.10 | 2.58 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 83 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.36 | 0.44 | 3.51 | 2.97 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 79 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.32 | 0.43 | 3.42 | 3.05 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 79 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 2.89 | 0.23 | 3.03 | 2.56 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 82 |
| 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 | 22.9 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.0 | 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 | 8.1 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 24.8 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Focused Care at Midland'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. 15 eligible stays.
10.4% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Texas: 0 better, 9 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 47 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 24 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Texas57.3% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 7 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: 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. 12 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: 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. 12 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure.
Median of homes: Texas98.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: MIDLAND COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Focused Post Acute Care Partners, a group of 25 nursing homes averaging 2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bowerman, Stephen | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Chaplin, Cari | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/01/2017 | |
| Flores, Thomas | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/01/2023 | |
| Goldapp, Shannon | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/01/2024 | |
| Greene, Tracie | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| Grimes, David | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| McKenzie, Mark | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/01/2017 | |
| Focused Post | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 11/01/2017 | |
| Focused Post Acute Care Partners II LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 11/01/2017 | |
| Focused Post Acute Care Partners LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 11/01/2017 | |
| Focused Post Acute Care Partners Management, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 11/01/2017 | |
| Fpacp Midland | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 11/01/2017 | |
| Midland County Hospital District | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2017 | |
| Bowerman, Stephen | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Conley, Shawn | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/01/2017 | |
| Hughett, Kimberlee | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/26/2019 | |
| McKenzie, Mark | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/01/2017 | |
| Milstead, Samantha | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/27/2022 | |
| Strubbe, Loretta | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/01/2017 | |
| Focused Post | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/24/2025 | |
| Focused Post Acute Care Partners II LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/22/2025 | |
| Focused Post Acute Care Partners Management, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/24/2025 | |
| Fpacp Midland | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/24/2025 | |
| Conley, Shawn | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/01/2017 | |
| Hughett, Kimberlee | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/26/2019 | |
| McKenzie, Mark | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/01/2017 | |
| Milstead, Samantha | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/27/2022 | |
| Strubbe, Loretta | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/01/2017 |
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.