2525 Centerville Rd, Dallas, TX 75228 · Dallas County · (214) 327-4503
264 certified beds, about 174 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1993
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675081 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 22, 2026, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
None of its 34 health citations since August 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.76 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.40 of those hours.
46.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to The Ensign Group, an affiliated group of 344 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 34 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident that included describing the services to be furnished to attain or maintain measurable objectives to meet the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, for 1 (Resident #1) of 7 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was care planned for a mechanical soft diet. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk of not receiving individualized care and services to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food safety. The facility failed to dispose of expired milk. This failure could place residents at risk of foodborne illness. Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food safety. The facility failed to dispose of expired milk. This failure could place residents at risk of foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 3 of 5 residents (Residents # 1, 2, and 3) reviewed for infection control in that:. The Speech Therapist touched her hair two times without using hand sanitizer while feeding Resident #1. The LVN-A touched her hair while feeding Resident #2, then she moved to assist Resident #3 with her meal, she did not sanitize her hands when she moved between the residents. This failure could place residents at risk of exposure and/or possible transmission of communicable diseases and infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for two (Resident #1 and Resident #2) of 5 residents reviewed for dignity. The facility failed to ensure Speech Therapist and LVN did not stand in front of Resident #1 and Resident #2 while feeding the residents during lunch meal on 03/09/26. These failures could place the residents at risk of not having the right to a dignified existence.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide the necessary services for residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for 7 residents (Resident #3, Resident #54, Resident #65, Resident #69, Resident #103, Resident #134, Resident #169) of 12 residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to ensure:1- Resident #3, Resident #54, Resident #69, Resident #134, and Resident #169 had their fingernails trimmed and cleaned.2- Resident #65 and Resident #103 had their fingernails trimmed. These failures could place residents who were dependent on staff for ADL care at risk of loss of dignity, risk for infections and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to ensure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, administering, and securing of medications for 3 medication cart (Medication nurse cart [NAME] Hall, medication aide cart Hall [NAME] Tower 1, and Medication Nurse cart Hall [NAME] Tower2) of 7 medication carts reviewed for pharmacy services and 2 Medication room (Medication room for [NAME] Hall, and the medication room for Hall [NAME] 1 Tower) of 4 medications rooms. The facility failed to ensure medications in unsecure containers were immediately removed from stock. The facility failed to ensure expired medication (two antibiotic solution bags) were not in the refrigeration. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident received food that is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 1 of 1 lunch meal tested for nutritive value, flavor, and appearance:The facility failed to provide food that was palatable and served at an appetizing temperature to residents, during lunch on 1/21/2026. This failure could affect the residents who ate food from the facility kitchen by placing them at risk of poor food intake and/or dissatisfaction of the meals served.
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 the facility's only kitchen in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure food item in the facility walk-in refrigerator were labeled and dated on 1/20/26. 2. The facility failed to ensure food items in the facility walk-in refrigerator were stored in sanitary condition on 1/20/26. These failures could affect residents who received their meals from the facility's only kitchen, by placing them at risk for food-borne illness, and food contamination.
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 and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 3 of 6 Residents (Resident #157, Resident #13 and Resident #127) observed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure CNA M and CNA L utilized Enhanced Barrier Precautions and performed hand hygiene during a mechanical lift transfer for Resident #157 and performed hand hygiene prior to leaving Resident #157's room on 01/20/26. 2. The facility failed to ensure CNA L performed hand hygiene during incontinence care for Resident # 13 and performed hand hygiene prior to leaving Resident #13's room on 01/20/26. 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for 1 (Resident #162) of 2 residents reviewed for catheter care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #162's urine drainage catheter bag was kept below the level of the bladder when the resident was up in his wheelchair. This failure could place residents at risk for urinary tract infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments under proper temperature controls for 2 Medication room (Medication room for [NAME] Hall, and the medication room for Hall [NAME] 1 Tower) of 4 medications rooms. The facility failed to ensure controlled substance medication safety box was anchored inside the refrigerated, and not removable. These failures could place residents at risk of not having the medication available due to possible drug diversion and at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of the medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident bedside was adequately equipped to allow all residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system that would relay the call directly to a staff member or a centralized staff work area for 1 of 7 residents (Resident# 67) reviewed for residents' call system. The facility failed on 01/20/2026 to ensure the call light system was working and available to Resident #67 These failures could place residents at risk of not having a means of directly contacting caregivers in an emergency or when they needed support for daily living. Record review of Resident #67's MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected he was a [AGE] year old male with an admission date of 12/05/2024. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to provide the necessary services for residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for 4 (Resident #17, Resident #28, Resident #91, and Resident #255) of 16 residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to ensure: 1- Resident #17 had his fingernails cleaned and trimmed. 2- Resident #91 had his fingernails trimmed. 3- Resident #28 had his fingernails cleaned and trimmed. 4- Resident #255 had his fingernails cleaned and trimmed. These failures could place residents who were dependent on staff for ADL care at risk for loss of dignity, risk for infections, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 3 of 5 Residents (Resident #27, Resident #133, Resident #41) reviewed for respiratory care. 1-The facility failed to ensure Oxygen (O2 ) in use signage was on Resident #133's doorway. 2-The facility failed to ensure Resident #27's nasal cannula tubing was changed in a timely manner. 3-The facility failed to ensure Resident #41 nasal cannula tubing was labeled or dated. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving appropriate respiratory care.
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 the facility's only kitchen. 1. The facility failed to ensure food items in the facility walk-in freezer were labeled and dated. 2. [NAME] A failed to ensure to use appropriate hand hygiene during meal prep. These failures could affect residents who received their meals from the facility's only kitchen, by placing them at risk for food-borne illness, and food contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of infection for 3 residents (Resident #35, Resident #44, and Resident#45) of 8 residents observed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure: 1- CNA I performed hand hygiene between change of gloves during incontinent care for Resident #44. 2- CMA F disinfected the blood pressure cuff in between blood pressure checks for the Resident #35 and Resident #45 These failures could place residents at risk for infection and cross contamination of pathogens and illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident has the right to reside and receive services in the facility with accommodation of resident needs and preferences for 1 of 30 residents (Resident #255) reviewed for reasonable accommodation of needs. The facility failed to ensure the call light system was within reach of the Resident #255 lying in bed. This failure could place residents in the facility at risk of being unable to have a means of directly contacting caregivers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for 1 (Resident #104) of 2 residents reviewed for catheter care. The facility failed to ensure CNA B kept Resident #104's urine catheter bag below the level of the bladder during incontinent care. This failure could place residents at risk for urinary tract infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents toileting facilities were adequately equipped to allow residents to call for assistance for 7 Residents (Resident#10, Resident#13, Resident#30, Resident#64, Resident#75, Resident#96, and Resident#134) of 30 residents reviewed for residents' call systems. The facility failed to ensure the call light system was accessible to a resident, lying on the floor in the residents' toilets, located between two adjacent rooms in all female secured unit: . Resident#30 . Resident#75 . Resident#96 . Resident#134 . Resident#64 . Resident#13 . Resident#10 This failure could place residents in the facility at risk of being unable to have a means of directly contacting caregivers.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse and neglect were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegations were made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, for one (Resident #1) of nine residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. The Abuse Coordinator failed to report an allegation of sexual abuse involving Resident #1 to the State Agency immediately but no later than 2 hours on 09/05/2024. The Abuse Coordinator was notified on 09/05/24 at 8:25 AM about the allegation of sexual abuse. The Abuse Coordinator self-reported the allegation of sexual abuse to the State Agency on 09/05/24 at 2:25 PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely for 1 (Resident #1) of 7 resident rooms reviewed for environment. The facility failed to ensure the call light system in Resident #1's room (Room L080) was in good repair. This failure placed residents at risk of possible injury due to an unsafe environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse and neglect were reported immediately but not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation did not involve abuse and did not result in serious bodily injury to the State Survey Agency for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for reporting. The facility failed to report to the State Survey Agency when the facility was without power from 05/28/24 to 05/31/24. This failure could place residents at risk for harm to include neglect and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately notify the resident representative for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for changes in condition. The facility failed to notify Resident # 1's family member of continued emesis and a subsequent order for Resident # 1 to be sent out to the hospital. This deficient practice could result in denial of resident rights of family to be notified with any change of status. Failure to notify family members of significant change of status could affect any resident at risk for hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and homelike environment for 4 residents (Residents #24, #143, #144 and #344) of 25 residents reviewed for environment. 1. The facility failed to ensure Residents #24, #143 and #144 were comfortable with temperature in their rooms. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #344's room was sanitary and homelike. Theses failures could place residents at risk of an unsanitary, uncomfortable and lack of a homelike environment in their rooms. Findings Included: 1. Review of Resident #24's face sheet dated 08/24/23 reflected Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of malnutrition, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems), diabetes and heart failure. [...]
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 4 (Resident #60, Resident 86, Resident #89, and Resident #114) of 8 residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to ensure: 1- Resident #60 had his fingernails trimmed and cleaned. 2- Resident #86 had her fingernails' bed cleaned. 3- Resident #89 had her fingernails trimmed. 4- Resident #114 had his fingernails trimmed and cleaned. This failure could place residents who were dependent on staff for ADL care at risk for loss of dignity, risk for infections and a decreased quality of life.
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 the facility's only kitchen. 1. The facility failed to ensure food items in the refrigerator were dated, labeled and sealed appropriately. 2. The facility failed to discard food stored in the dry storage that should no longer be consumed. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and food-borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designated to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infection for 6 (Resident #78, Resident #29, Resident #71, Resident#123, Resident#25, and Resident#26) of 32 residents reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure CMA C disinfected the blood pressure cuff in between blood pressure checks for Residents #78 and #29. 2. The facility failed to ensure CNA H did hand hygiene between entering rooms of Resident #71 and Resident #123. 3. The facility failed to ensure CMA L disinfected the blood pressure cuff in between blood pressure checks for Residents #25 and #26. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for one (L200) of six halls reviewed for physical environment. 1. The facility failed to ensure resident room bathroom shared between L218 and L219 had working hot water and did not drip in bathroom sink. 2. The facility failed to ensure resident room bathroom shared between L216 and L217 did not drip from bathroom faucet. 3. The facility failed to ensure resident room [ROOM NUMBER]'s chiller did not have exposed wires underneath. These failures could place facility at risk for unsanitary and hazardous living conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident was treated with the respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner that promoted the maintenance of her quality of life for one (Resident #11) of 5 residents reviewed for dignity. The facility failed to provide dignity and respect for Resident #11 by ignoring her request to go toilet 3 times. These failures could place residents in the facility at risk of feeling low self-worth and disrespected.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that described the services to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for one (Resident #32) of three residents reviewed for care plans. 1. The facility failed to care plan significant weight loss of -16.4 pounds (- 7.5%) in 3 months that was triggered on 8/3/2023 for Resident #32. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving care and services related to their identified needs to maintain or reach their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care was provided with such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 5 residents (#343) reviewed for respiratory care in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #343 nasal tubing and oxygen water container for her oxygen concentrators were dated. These deficient practices could affect residents who received oxygen therapy and serve as a source of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to ensure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, administering, and securing of medications for 1 medication cart (medication aide cart Hall N1) of 6 medication carts reviewed for pharmacy services in that: The facility failed to ensure medications in unsecure containers were immediately removed from stock. This failure could place residents at risk of not having the medication available due to possible drug diversion and at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of the medication. Findings Included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assure that medications were secure and inaccessible to unauthorized staff and residents for 1 (nurses medication cart Hall L1) of 6 medication carts reviewed for medication storage. The facility failed to ensure: The medication supplies were secured or attended by authorized staff when the nurses' cart in hall L1 was left unlocked and unattended in the hallway L1. This failure could place residents at risk to access and ingest of medications leading to a risk for harm and could lead to missing medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms were adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relays the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area for one (Resident Room L320-A) of 9 residents' rooms reviewed for resident call system in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident Room L320-A's call light was working properly and did not have exposed wires on the wall where call button cord was connected to the wall. This failure could place residents at risk for delay in assistance and decreased quality of life, self-worth, and dignity.
28 fire safety citations on file: 12 on January 22, 2026, 12 on October 30, 2024, 4 on August 24, 2023.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
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) | 3.76 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.40 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.43 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.24 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.11 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 46.6% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 18.2% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.62 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 3.89 on weekdays and 3.43 on weekends, 12% 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 3.82 in April to June 2025 to 3.76 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 | 3.76 | 0.40 | 3.89 | 3.43 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 174 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.84 | 0.44 | 3.98 | 3.49 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 173 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.78 | 0.41 | 3.92 | 3.45 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 175 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.82 | 0.33 | 3.99 | 3.41 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 171 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Texas, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.33 | 0.40 | 3.50 | 2.93 | 2.2% | 0.7% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Trains nurse aides: this home runs a state-approved CNA program (state list: HHSC Approved NATCEP Providers, as of October 6, 2026). A nursing home cannot charge aides it employs, or has offered a job, for state-approved training (42 CFR 483.152(c)). See Golden Acres Living and Rehabilitation CNA training on CareerFunded, our sister site for career training.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texas, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.03 | $16.97 to $20.71 | 88,680 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.92 | $27.46 to $32.89 | 57,560 |
| Registered nurses | $46.14 | $38.06 to $50.53 | 271,380 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Texas | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 28.2 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 24.7 | 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 | 17.2 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 28.1 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.5 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.1 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Golden Acres Living and Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (44.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
44.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Texas: 116 better, 50 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 28 eligible stays.
10.3% 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. 99 eligible stays.
9.3% 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. 66 eligible stays.
85.5% 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. 55 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. 69 residents counted.
1.0% 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. 69 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Texas98.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 8 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: EASTLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to The Ensign Group, a group of 344 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eastland Memorial Hospital District | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 02/20/2015 |
| Nayak, Neeta | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/13/2024 | |
| Thompson, Christopher | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 10/01/2009 | |
| Burnam, Soon | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/01/2009 | |
| Keetch, Chad | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2011 | |
| Taylor, Stephen | Corporate officer | Individual | 07/01/2025 | |
| Pomerado Ranch Healthcare, Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 02/20/2015 | |
| Nayak, Neeta | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/13/2024 | |
| Thompson, Christopher | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2009 | |
| Caretrust Gp LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2009 | |
| Caretrust Reit Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2009 | |
| Ctr Partnership LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2009 | |
| Ensign Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2009 | |
| Hillendahl Health Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2009 | |
| Pomerado Ranch Healthcare, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/12/2025 | |
| Nayak, Neeta | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 08/13/2024 | |
| Thompson, Christopher | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2009 |
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.