1019 Holden St., Glen Rose, TX 76043 · Somervell County · (254) 897-1429
118 certified beds, about 89 residents a day · Government - Hospital district · Medicare and Medicaid since 1996
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675572 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 15, 2026, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 20 health citations since September 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $17,128 in the last three years; the largest was $9,110, and the latest is dated May 11, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.39 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.27 of those hours.
37.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 20 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed food safety. The facility failed to ensure foods were labeled properly in the kitchen. The facility failed to dispose of foods after the use by / shelf life date. These failures could place residents that eat out of the kitchen at risk for food borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to formulate an advanced directive for 1 of 18 (Resident #13) residents reviewed for advanced directives. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #13's advanced directive consent, Out of Hospital Do Not Resuscitate (OOH-DNR) order, was signed by physician in section D.This failure could place residents at risk of receiving interventions that go against their personal preferences.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews 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 2 of 8 residents (Resident #55 and Resident #72) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to address Resident #55's indwelling urinary catheter on her comprehensive resident-centered care plan. The facility failed to include measurable goals and appropriate interventions on Resident #72's comprehensive resident-centered care plan regarding weight loss. These failures could affect residents by placing them at risk of not receiving individualized care and services to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to assess the resident for risk of entrapment from bed rails, review the risks and benefits of bed rails with the resident or resident representative and obtain informed consent prior to installation for 2 of 18 (Resident #3 and Resident #19) residents whose records were reviewed for the use of side rails. The facility failed to assess Resident #3 and Resident #19 for risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation. The facility failed to review the risks and benefits of bed rails with the resident or resident representative and obtain informed consent prior to installation of bed rails for Resident #3 and Resident #19. The facility failed to follow the manufacturers' recommendations for maintaining bed rails for Resident #3 and Resident #19. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to have reports with respect to last 3 surveys, certifications and investigations made respecting the facility and any plan of correction in effect with respect to the facility available for any individual to review upon request for 3 of 3 days (01.13.2026, 01.14.2026, 01.15.2026). The facility failed to have surveys and investigation reports with the plan of corrections available for family members and residents (11.16.2025, 12.22.2025 and 12.26.2025) [JW1] to review. This failure could affect residents who resided in the facility and could result in a lack of awareness of the investigation results and the plan of corrections by visitors, family and residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure nursing staffing information was posted in a prominent place readily accessible to resident and visitors that included: the census, the total number and the actual hours worked by the registered nurses, licensed practical nurses or licensed vocational nurses and certified nurse aides directly responsible for resident care per shift on 1 of 3 days (01.15.2025) reviewed for required postings. The facility failed to ensure the daily staffing information for licensed and unlicensed nursing staff was posted in a prominent location on 01.15.2026 with the census, the total number and the actual hours worked by the registered nurses, licensed practical nurses or licensed vocation nurses and certified aides directly responsible for resident care per shift. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to describe in the care plan the services provided due to the resident's exercise of rights and failed to describe in the care plan the resident's preference and potential for future discharge for 5 (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, Resident #5) of 7 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to include the residents' preference for discharge and if their desire to return to the community had been assessed in Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, Resident #5 care plans. The facility failed to update the care plan of an advanced medical directive ordered for Resident #1. This failure could put the residents at risk of their person-centered care plan not being implemented to meet their preferences and goals which could affect their medical, physical, mental and psychosocial needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to keep the residents free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation for 2 (Resident #1, Resident #2) of 7 residents reviewed. The facility failed to prevent Resident #2 from being slapped by her spouse which led to redness to the cheek. The facility failed to prevent verbal abuse to Resident #1 by a hospitality aide (HA). The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The noncompliance began 3/2/25 and ended on 4/24/25. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. This failure could place the residents at risk of physical harm, pain, or mental anguish.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to report the results of an investigation to the State Survey Agency within 5 working days of the incident for 1 (Resident #4) of 5 Residents reviewed. The Administrator failed to report the findings of an investigation concerning Resident #4 to the State Survey Agency within 5 working days of the incident. This failure could put the residents at risk of compromised protection and oversight of the state agency.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure resident was free from misappropriation of all controlled drugs is maintained and periodically reconciled for 1 (Resident #3) of 7 residents reviewed for controlled substances. The facility failed to ensure LVN B conducted proper counting of the medications at shift change. The facility failed to ensure LVN B reported an identified drug discrepancy for Resident #3. This failure may put the residents at risk of drug diversion and their pharmaceutical needs not being met.
Inspectors wroteBased observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments for 4 of 6 (SS Cart 1, SS Cart 2, SS Cart 3 and GV Cart) medication/treatment carts reviewed for label and storage of drugs and biologicals. The facility failed to ensure medication carts SS Cart 1 and SS Cart 2 were not left unlocked, unsecured, and unattended. The facility failed to ensure treatment carts, SS Cart 3 and GV Cart were not left unlocked, unsecured, and unattended. This failure could place residents at risk of having access to unauthorized medications, wound care and medical supplies leading to possible harm or drug diversions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, that were complete and accurate for 2 (Resident #3 and Resident # 7) of 7 residents reviewed for resident records. The facility failed to ensure skin assessments were documented in medical record for Resident #3 and Resident # 7. This failure could place residents at risk of having errors in care and treatment.
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 ensure: 1. All opened items in the freezer, refrigerator, and dry food storage were dated and labeled and free from expired foods. 2. The ice machine was cleaned properly. These failures could place residents at risk for food borne illness and cross-contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies, skills set and accreditations to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service department for 1 of 4 dietary staff (DA A) reviewed for dietary support personnel. The facility failed to ensure that dietary staff (DA A) serving in kitchen were working with a current Food Handlers Certificate. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their nutritional needs met and food borne illnesses due to lack of dietary staff training.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident #1) The facility did not ensure Resident #1 had the chair/bed alarm in place while resident #1 was sitting in the reclining chair. The resident fell and fractured her nose. This failure could place the only resident using a bed/chair alarm as an assistive device at risk for accidents or falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to properly store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed. The facility failed to ensure that staff utilized proper personal hygiene practices. The facility failed to ensure foods were sealed and/or labeled properly in refrigerators. These failures could place residents that eat out of the kitchen at risk for food borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident that were complete and accurately documented for 2 (Resident #53 and 78) of 8 residents reviewed for medical records. Facility failed to document follow-up observations and monitoring for Resident #53 after she had falls. Facility failed to document follow-up observations and monitoring for Resident #78 after he had falls, behaviors, and antibiotic therapy. These failures placed residents at risk for continuity of care and early detection of complications related to medications and injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 2 (CNA-C, and MA-D) staff observed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure MA-D did not sanitize the blood pressure cuff before or after use between residents. 2. The facility failed to ensure CNA-C performed proper peri-care (incontinent care) or proper hand hygiene for Resident #18. These failures could place residents of the facility at risk of infections due to unclean BP cuffs and incontinent care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #55) reviewed for quality of care. in that: The facility failed to address or document Resident #55's incident resulting in a fractured ankle on 07/13/2023 until 07/17/2023. The facility failed to have a physician's order for an ankle boot to Resident #55's right ankle and to have physicians' orders to monitor for circulation or check skin integrity underneath ankle boot for Resident #55. The facility failed to update Resident #55's comprehensive care plan regarding non weight bearing status or the use of ankle boot for Resident #55. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies, and skills set to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service for 1 of 1 (DM) reviewed for qualified dietary staff. The facility failed to ensure the facility's DM met the requirements for a certified dietary manager. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their nutritional needs met and placed them at risk for food born illnesses.
5 fire safety citations on file: 3 on January 15, 2026, 1 on October 10, 2024, 1 on September 13, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 11, 2025 | Fine | $9,110 |
| January 5, 2024 | Fine | $8,018 |
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) | 3.39 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.27 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.78 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.14 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.98 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 37.8% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 28.6% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.37 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 3.64 on weekdays and 2.78 on weekends, 24% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.2% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.36 in April to June 2025 to 3.39 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 | 3.39 | 0.27 | 3.64 | 2.78 | 0.2% | 0 of 90 | 89 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.11 | 0.28 | 3.30 | 2.63 | 0.2% | 0 of 92 | 93 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.34 | 0.31 | 3.53 | 2.85 | 0.2% | 0 of 92 | 91 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.36 | 0.29 | 3.54 | 2.93 | 0.1% | 0 of 91 | 87 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Texas, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.33 | 0.40 | 3.50 | 2.93 | 2.2% | 0.7% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texas, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.03 | $16.97 to $20.71 | 88,680 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.92 | $27.46 to $32.89 | 57,560 |
| Registered nurses | $46.14 | $38.06 to $50.53 | 271,380 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Texas | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.1 | 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 | 1.0 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.9 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.3 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.4 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.4 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.1 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Glen Rose Nursing and Rehab Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (69.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
69.5% 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. 87 eligible stays.
8.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Texas: 0 better, 9 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 94 eligible stays.
7.7% 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. 69 eligible stays.
72.1% 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. 68 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.
1.2% 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.
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. 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: SOMERVELL COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Somervell County Hospital District | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 05/01/2021 |
| Whitehead, Daniel | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 05/01/2021 | |
| Honea, Michael | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/01/2021 | |
| Glen Rose Nursing and Rehabilitation, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 05/01/2021 | |
| Thomas, Brian | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2021 |
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.