2112 Forum Parkway, Bedford, TX 76021 · Tarrant County · (817) 799-4600
139 certified beds, about 95 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2016
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 676405 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 19, 2026, inspectors cited 2 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 23 health citations since December 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $19,083 in the last three years; the largest was $19,083, and the latest is dated September 19, 2024.
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 0.71 of those hours.
49.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Hmg Healthcare, an affiliated group of 31 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 the necessary services for residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for 1 (Resident#1) of 4 residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to ensure Resident#1 had her fingernails cleaned and trimmed on 06/02/26. This failure could place residents at risk for loss of dignity, risk for infections, and a decreased quality of life. A record review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnosis of: type 2 diabetes mellitus (elevated blood sugar), non-Alzheimer's dementia (brain disorders causing cognitive decline due to factors other than Alzheimer's), and stroke. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight or desirable body weight range and electrolyte balance, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that this is not possible or resident preferences indicate otherwise for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #73) reviewed for nutritional status. The facility failed to recognize, evaluate, and address timely interventions for Resident #73 when the Dietitian made the recommendation for it on 01/02/26. Resident #73 experienced weight loss of 7.07% (7.4 pounds) from 12/24/25 to 03/01/26. This failure could place residents at risk for improper care, weight loss, malnutrition, and overall health decline.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assured the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 2 of 5 residents (Residents #2 and #31) reviewed for pharmacy services.1. LVN J failed to administer a Potassium Chloride Extended-Release tablet in the proper form, when she crushed the tablet, before administering it to Resident #2 through the resident's enteral feeding tube. 2. RN H failed to ensure Resident #31 received his morning dose of sodium chloride 1 gram when RN H prepared the medication and left it on the 100-hall medication cart. RN H did not return to administer the medication to Resident #31 when he came back to the room. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preference for 1 (Resident #2) of 1 resident reviewed for food preferences. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 was given a substitute food item. This failure could place residents at risk of not eating their meals, further resulting in weight loss, and poor quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received food that accommodate the allergies, intolerances, and preferences of 2 (Resident #1 and Resident #2) of 5 residents reviewed for food and nutrition services. 1. On 07/25/25 during dinner, the facility failed to accommodate the preference of Resident #1 when she was served a pork hotdog that caused her to become nauseous and vomit. 2. On 07/29/25 during lunch, the facility failed to accommodate the preference of Resident #2 when he was served beef tacos. The failure could affect residents who consumed food from the facility's kitchen by placing them at risk for allergic reactions, dissatisfaction, poor intake, weight loss, and decline in health.
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 1 of 3 residents (Resident #47) reviewed for oxygen. The facility failed to have accurate physician orders for oxygen use for Resident #47. This failure could place residents who received oxygen therapy at risk for inadequate or inappropriate amounts of oxygen delivery and possible infection.
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 1 of 2 residents (Resident #48) reviewed for dialysis. The facility failed to ensure dialysis communication forms were completed for Resident #48 before going for dialysis and 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 monitor and verify that the feeding tube is in the right location (e.g., stomach or small intestine, depending on the tube) before administering medications to prevent complications for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #92) reviewed for feeding tubes and for 1 of 2 refrigerators and 2 of 2 medication rooms reviewed for pharmacy procedures. 1. The facility failed to ensure LVN J checked for residual (the amount of liquid remaining in the stomach after an enteral feeding) before administering medication to Resident #92. This failure could place residents at risk for adverse effects due to inappropriate management of g-tube care. 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident's drug regimen was free of unnecessary medication for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #89) reviewed for adequate monitoring of unnecessary medication. The facility did not monitor Resident #89 for side-effects related to the use of the anti-anxiety medication Buspirone, hypnotic medication Zolpidem Tartrate, and the anti-psychotic medication Ingrezza. This failure could place the residents at risk for adverse consequences of medication.
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 2 of 10 residents (Residents #7 and #9) reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure CNA M used Personal Protection Equipment during urinary catheter care performed for Resident #7 while on EBP precautions. 2. The facility failed to ensure RN C used Personal Protection Equipment during medication pass and providing care for Resident #9's tube feeding cite while on EBP precautions. These failures could place residents at risk for cross contamination and the spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary services to maintain good grooming for a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #14) reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #14 received grooming assistance to remove unwanted facial hair. This failure could affect the residents who require assistance with care from facility staff by placing them at risk for social isolation, loss of dignity and self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #9) reviewed for catheter care. The facility failed to follow physician orders for routine catheter care including cleaning for Resident #9. This failure could place residents with foley catheters at risk of urinary infection and improper catheter care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure parenteral fluids were administered consistent with professional standards for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #64) reviewed for intravenous fluids. The facility failed to ensure the dressing on Resident #64's peripheral intravenous line (a short flexible tube inserted into a vein to administer fluids and medications) was dated and initialed. The failures could affect residents by placing them at risk for infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for two (Resident #1 and Resident #2) of 2 residents, reviewed for pharmaceutical services, in that: Medications must be released to residents only on the written or verbal authorization of the attending physician. When a resident is transferred directly to another nursing facility or discharged to home, the resident's medications must be released to the new facility or to the resident or his family, respectively. The facility failed to provide the correct medications to Resident #1 upon discharge and failed to provide the correct medication to Resident #2 upon discharge. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident receives care, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent pressure ulcers and does not develop pressure ulcers unless the individual's clinical condition demonstrates that they were unavoidable for 1 of 2 residents (Resident # 1) reviewed for quality of care. The facility did not prevent the development of one facility-acquired Stage IV pressure injury on the right calf for Resident #1. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 09/18/2024. The IJ Template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 12:55PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who are unable to carry out the activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene for 3 of 6 residents (Resident #205, Resident #206, and Resident #209) reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #205 and #206 were provided regular showers. The facility failed to ensure Resident #209 was provided regular showers and personal hygiene based on the resident's preference. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving personal care services and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on 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 of 8 residents (Resident #355), reviewed for quality of care. 1. Facility failed to ensure an active order was followed for blood sugar monitoring for Resident # 355 from 12/12/23 to 12/19/23 as ordered by provider. 2. Facility failed to notify physician of an implanted continuous blood sugar monitoring medical device for Resident# 355. These failures could place residents at risk for inadequate care, inaccurate blood sugar results, infection at device site, and or bleeding.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were able to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight or desirable body weight range and electrolyte balance, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrated that it was not possible, or the resident preferences indicated otherwise for 2 of 10 residents (Resident #205 and Resident #301) reviewed for quality of care. 1. The facility failed to weigh Resident #205 and #301 at admission per facility policy and physician's orders. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #301 did not have an unplanned significant weight loss. 3. The facility failed to ensure the Dietitian assessed Resident #205 upon admission. These failures could place residents at risk for decrease nutritional and weight status and a decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, distribute and served food in accordance with professional standards for food safety in the facility's only kitchen reviewed for food and nutrition services. The facility failed to dispose of food items 72 hours after opening date in the walk-in refrigerator of the facility's kitchen. These failures affected residents by placing them at risk for contamination and food-borne illness.
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 disease and infections for 4 (Residents #10, #47, #94, #355) of 8 residents reviewed for infection control. 1. Facility failed to ensure the Dietary Manager wore proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) (gown, face shield, gloves, and N-95/KN95 respirator mask) before entering Resident #94 and Resident # 355's room that was on Transmission Based Precaution (isolation due to communicable infectious disease). 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to preserve the resident right to make choices about aspects of his or her life in the facility that were significant to the resident for 1 of 6 (Resident #305) reviewed for Resident Rights. The facility failed to respect the rights of Resident #305 regarding choice of food and care. This failure placed residents at risk of their rights being disregarded and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develoop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan 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 (Resident #355) of 8 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. Facility failed to complete a care plan for an implanted continuous blood sugar monitoring medical device for Resident# 355. This failure could place residents at risk for inadequate care, inaccurate blood sugar results, infection at device site, and or bleeding.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure, in accordance with State and Federal laws, all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments under proper temperature controls and permitted only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for one of ten residents (Resident #55) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #55 did not have unsecured medication in her room on 12/18/23 and 12/19/23. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not being monitored for their medications, adverse reactions, and drug diversion.
7 fire safety citations on file: 1 on March 19, 2026, 4 on January 13, 2025, 2 on December 20, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| September 19, 2024 | Fine | $19,083 |
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 | 0.71 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.42 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.22 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.78 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 49.1% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 43.8% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.23 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 3.83 on weekdays and 3.42 on weekends, 11% 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 3.67 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 | 0.71 | 3.83 | 3.42 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 95 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.60 | 0.61 | 3.71 | 3.31 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 88 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.73 | 0.64 | 3.87 | 3.37 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 92 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.67 | 0.59 | 3.77 | 3.40 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 89 |
| 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 | 6.9 | 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 | 2.6 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.8 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.4 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.2 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Forum Parkway Health & Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (59.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
59.4% this home
Better than 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. 235 eligible stays.
11.9% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Texas: 0 better, 9 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 259 eligible stays.
7.5% 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. 124 eligible stays.
56.3% 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. 64 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. 92 residents counted.
4.5% 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. 92 residents counted.
92.3% 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. 52 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: WINNIE-STOWELL HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Hmg Healthcare, a group of 31 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Murrell, Edward | Corporate director | Individual | 09/01/2023 | |
| Rollo, Jeffery | Corporate director | Individual | 09/01/2023 | |
| Stramecki, Anthony | Corporate director | Individual | 09/01/2023 | |
| Vratis, Kacey | Corporate director | Individual | 09/01/2023 | |
| Way, George | Corporate director | Individual | 09/01/2023 | |
| Heb SNF Oe, LP | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2023 | |
| Hmg Healthcare LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2023 | |
| Hmg Partners I, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2023 | |
| Hmg SNF I, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2023 | |
| Balsamo, Krystal | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2021 | |
| Culp, Roland | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2021 | |
| Daspit, Laurence | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2021 | |
| Dohn, William | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2021 | |
| Gadberry, Dylan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/05/2023 | |
| James, James | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/04/2022 | |
| Murrell, Edward | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2018 | |
| Pico, Ana | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2021 | |
| Prince, Derek | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2021 | |
| Reinarz, Christian | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2021 | |
| Rollo, Jeffery | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2021 | |
| Stramecki, Anthony | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2021 | |
| Vratis, Kacey | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2021 | |
| Way, George | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2021 | |
| Balsamo, Krystal | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2021 | |
| Culp, Roland | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2021 | |
| Daspit, Laurence | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2021 | |
| Dohn, William | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2021 | |
| Gadberry, Dylan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/05/2023 | |
| James, James | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/04/2022 | |
| Pico, Ana | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2021 | |
| Prince, Derek | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2021 | |
| Reinarz, Christian | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2021 | |
| Stanbridge, Norma | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2021 |
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.