6850 Rufe Snow Dr, Fort Worth, TX 76148 · Tarrant County · (817) 514-4940
124 certified beds, about 88 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2007
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 676161 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 17, 2026, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 35 health citations since October 2023, 6 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (6 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $96,925 in the last three years; the largest was $55,487, and the latest is dated September 5, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.71 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.53 of those hours.
27.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Nexion Health, an affiliated group of 51 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 35 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents' environment remained free of hazards as was possible for three of ten residents (Resident #14, Resident#57 and Resident #74) reviewed for accident hazard. The facility failed to ensure a pair of scissors was not on Resident #14's bed on 06/15/2026. The facility failed to ensure a pair of scissors was not on Resident #57's bed on 06/15/2026. The facility failed to ensure a fingernail clipper was not on Resident #74's bedside table on 06/15/2026. These failures could prevent the residents from having an environment that was free from accidents and potential injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with the professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen (Kitchen #1) reviewed for kitchen sanitation. The facility failed to ensure food items were properly stored in the freezer. The facility failed to ensure dented cans were identified and removed. The facility failed to ensure food items were properly stored in the dry food pantry. Findings Include: During an observation of the facility's dry food pantry on 06/15/2026 at 09:12 a.m., revealed: The lid covering a large plastic container of yellow corn meal was not secured and exposed to air. One can of solid packed apples was dented. One can of sliced peaches was dented. During an observation of the facility's freezer on 06/15/2026 at 09:15 a.m., revealed: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and provided care in a manner that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for one of six residents (Resident #16) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure visual privacy for Resident #16, whose breast was exposed while lying in bed and was visible from the hallway. This failure could place residents at risk for diminished quality of life, loss of dignity, and self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health of safety of the resident or other residents for 1 (Resident #77) of 5 residents reviewed for accommodations. The facility failed to ensure Resident #77 was provided with the appropriate size brief. This failure could place residents at risk of maintaining and/or achieving independent functioning, dignity, and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a discharge summary for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #111) reviewed for closed records. The facility failed to ensure Resident #111 discharged the facility with a discharge summary that included an accurate and current description of the clinical status of the resident and sufficiently detailed, individualized care instructions to ensure that care is coordinated and the resident transitions safely from one setting to another. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving appropriate and timely care due to confusion among various facilities, agencies, practitioners, and caregivers involved with the resident's care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who needs respiratory care, including tracheostomy care and tracheal suctioning, is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 2 of 6 residents (Resident #14 and Resident #29), reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #14 and Resident #29 were wearing and receiving continuous oxygen therapy per their physician's orders. This failure could place the residents at risk of health-associated infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature control for 3 residents (Resident #22, Resident #75 and Resident #105) medication on 1 of 3 medication carts (100 Hall nurse cart) reviewed for pharmacy services.1. The facility failed to ensure proper disposal of Resident #22's Tramadol 50mg tab when the blister pack was damaged. 2. The facility failed to ensure proper disposal of Resident #75's Acetaminophen-Codeine #3 tab when the blister pack was damaged. 3. The facility failed to ensure proper disposal of Resident #105's Lorazepam 0.5mg tab when the blister pack was damaged. 4. The facility failed to ensure CMA A ensured that Resident #11 swallowed her medication before leaving the resident's room. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for medication errors in that:The facility failed to administer Resident #1's Metoprolol Succinate ER Tablet Extended Release 24 Hour 50 MG as ordered by the physician on 04/27/26, 04/28/26, 04/29/26. This failure could place residents at risk of medical complications and a decrease in therapeutic dosages of their medications as ordered by the physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive assessment within 14 calendar days after admission as required for 1 (Resident #3) of 3 resident records reviewed. The facility failed to ensure Resident#1's Admission/Comprehensive MDS assessment was completed within 14 days following her 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 observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored securely for one (treatment cart #1) of 4 reviewed for storage of medications. The facility failed to ensure treatment cart #1 was locked while unattended on 05/04/26This failure could place residents at risk of having access to unauthorized medications and/or lead to possible harm or drug diversions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 (Resident #1) of 9 residents reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1, who required a mechanical lift transfer, was free of an accident hazard on 08/12/25 when she was transferred by CNA B without a mechanical lift and sustained a significant injury. Resident #1 was transported to the local hospital and diagnosed with a right humerus fracture. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 09/04/25 at 04:00 PM and an IJ Template was provided to the DON at 04:41PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect, dignity, and care in a manner and environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for three (Resident #4, Resident #61, and Resident #186) of residents reviewed for Privacy and Confidentiality. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #186's medical information was not left on top of a documentation cart on 04/15/2025. 2. The facility failed to ensure MA H did not leave Resident #61s' medical information on top of the medication cart unattended on 04/15/2025. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4's medical information was not left on top of a cart on 04/15/2025. 4. The facility failed to ensure MA I did not leave Resident #4's medical information on top of the medication cart unattended on 04/17/2025. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely for 13 of 16 resident rooms on the 100 hall (Resident room [ROOM NUMBER], #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, and #13), and the air condition unit on the 100 hall, reviewed for environment. 1. The facility failed to ensure resident rooms #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, and #13 were thoroughly cleaned and sanitized. 2. The facility failed to ensure the air condition unit on the 100 hall was thoroughly cleaned and sanitized. These deficient practices could place residents at risk of living in an unclean and unsanitary environment which could lead to a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents, who needed respiratory care, were provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for five (Resident #3, #4, #80, #187, and #188) of twenty residents reviewed for Respiratory Care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3's nasal cannula (flexible tube used to deliver oxygen to the nose through two prongs) was properly stored when not in use on 04/15/2025. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4's humidifier bottle (a medical device designed to increase the moisture level in supplemental oxygen) had water in it on 04/15/2025. 3. The facility failed to ensure an Oxygen in Use sign was outside Resident #80's room on 04/15/2025. 4. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distributed, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the facility's only kitchen, reviewed for food and nutrition services. 1. The facility failed to ensure the ice machine and ice scoop holder in the facility kitchen was thoroughly cleaned. 2. The facility failed to ensure kitchen cooking equipment was cleaned. 3. The facility failed to place a cover on top of the tea dispenser to avoid air borne contaminants. 4. The facility failed to ensure cooking equipment in the dining area was clean and sanitized. 5. The facility failed to label and date food stored in the refrigerator once it was opened and used. These failures could place residents at risk for cross contamination and other air-borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for four (Resident #9, Resident #41, Resident #81, and Resident #187) of ten residents reviewed for Infection Control. 1. The facility failed to ensure CNA F changed her gloves and performed hand hygiene before, after, and while providing incontinent care to Resident #41 on 04/15/2025. 2. The facility failed to ensure LVN C wore a gown while administering Resident # 9's medications via g-tube 04/16/2025. 3. The facility failed to ensure LVN C wore a gown while administering Resident #81's medication via g-tube 04/16/2025. 4. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for two (Resident #18 and Resident #43) of eighteen residents reviewed for Reasonable Accommodation of Needs. The facility failed to ensure the call light system in Resident #18 and Resident #43's rooms were in a position that was accessible to the resident on 04/15/2025. This failure could place the residents at risk of being unable to obtain assistance when needed and help in the event of an emergency.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents' environment remained free of accident hazards as was possible for 2 of 6 residents (Residents #25 and #68) reviewed for accident prevention. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #25 had physician orders for the bolster pads that were applied to her mattress for fall prevention. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #68 had physician orders for her scoop mattress These failures could prevent the residents from having an environment that was free and clear of accidents and hazards.
Inspectors wroteBased observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were incontinent of bowel and bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for one (Resident #41) of three residents observed for Incontinent Care. The facility failed to ensure that CNA F did not wipe Resident #41's perineal (area between the legs) area from back to front while providing incontinent care on 04/15/2025. This failure could place the residents at risk of cross-contamination and development of urinary tract infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding for two (Resident #9 and Resident #81) of two residents reviewed for Feeding Tube (a way of providing nutrition directly to the stomach). 1. The facility failed to ensure LVN C checked Resident #9's g-tube (gastrostomy tube: a tube inserted through the abdomen that delivers nutrition directly to the stomach) placement and residual before administering medication on 04/16/2025. 2. The facility failed to ensure LVN C checked Resident #81's g-tube placement and residual before administering medication on 04/16/2025. These failures could place residents with G-tubes at risk for infection, dehydration, and drug-to-drug interaction.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records review, the facility failed to identify and provide needed care and services that were resident centered, in accordance with the resident's preferences, goals for care and professional standards of practice that will meet each resident's physical, mental, and psychosocial needs, for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for quality of care. 1. The facility failed to perform at least two weekly skin assessments for Resident #1 from the admission date of 11/09/24. The first weekly skin assessment was completed on 11/27/24 that reflected No skin issues or wounds. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records review, the facility failed to ensure a resident did not develop pressure ulcers/injuries (PU/PIs) unless clinically unavoidable and that the facility provided care and services consistent with professional standards of practice to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new pressure ulcers/injuries from developing for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers/injuries. 1. The facility failed to perform at least two weekly skin assessments for Resident #1 from the admission date of 11/09/24. On 11/09/24, the admitting nurse [LVN A] observed redness to Resident #1's buttocks. A record review of Resident #1's admission orders dated 11/08/24 sent by the discharging facility revealed wound (11/05/24) - rash midline coccyx (3 days). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records review the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive person-centered care plans that include measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs, and describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 resident's care plans reviewed. 1. The facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan to address the risk of/actual altered skin integrity for Resident #1. admission paperwork (to the SNF) dated 11/08/24, revealed Resident #1 had altered skin integrity. 2. The facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for PAD for Resident #1. admission paperwork (to the SNF) dated 11/08/24, revealed Resident #1 had a history of PAD. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that respiratory care was provided consistent with professional standards of practice for one (Resident #4, #5, and #6) of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory therapy. 1. LVN L failed to ensure Resident, #5 and #6's NC were changed and dated according to facility policy on 09/25/24. 2. RN A failed to change, date, and store Resident #4's NC tubing and nebulizer mask in a dated bag when on 09/25/24. These failures could lead to respiratory infections, poor air quality, and not having their respiratory requirements met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding for 2 of 7 residents (Residents #3 and #7) reviewed for feeding tubes. RN G failed to ensure Resident # 3's enteral feeding formula and water bag was labeled with the date and time of administration via G tube (feeding tube medical device to provide nutrition) on 09/25/2024. RN A failed to ensure Resident #7's enteral feeding formula and water bag was labeled with the date and time of administration via G tube (feeding tube medical device to provide nutrition) on 09/25/2024. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 3's and Resident #7's enteral feeding piston syringe was stored in container and dated on 09/25/2024. These failures could place residents at risk of tube obstruction and a decrease in hydration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to immediately consult with the resident's physician and notify the resident representative when there was a significant change in the resident's condition or need to alter treatment significantly for one (Resident #1) of eight residents reviewed for notify of changes. -The facility failed to notify Resident #1's physician and responsible party when the resident showed signs of an altered mental status for at least 22 hours and was later diagnosed with severe sepsis at the local hospital. On 09/03/24, an Immediate Jeopardy was identified. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 5:45 PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to identify and provide needed care or services that resulted in an actual or potential decline in one or more resident's physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for one (Resident #1) of four residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to identify, monitor, assess, evaluate, and document Resident #1's changes in the bowel regimen. The facility failed to provide Resident #1 as needed (PRN) medication for constipation. The facility failed to evaluate Resident #1's bowel sounds as indicated and report significant abnormalities to the provider per the care plan intervention initiated, 07/12/2024. The facility failed to notify the provider of Resident #1's last known bowel movement on 08/08/24. The facility failed to notify the provider about Resident #1's STAT lab results received on 08/26/24 at 3:21 PM . [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to promptly notify the physician of laboratory results in accordance with facility policy and procedures for notification for one (Resident #1) of four residents reviewed for laboratory services. The facility failed to notify the provider about Resident #1's STAT lab results received on 08/26/24 at 3:21 PM. On 08/27/24, Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital for altered mental status (AMS). Resident #1 was admitted , diagnosed, and treated for severe sepsis, chronic constipation, and fecal impaction. On 09/03/24, an Immediate Jeopardy was identified. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 5:45 PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, including tracheostomy care and tracheal suctioning, is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals and preferences for two (Resident #7 and Resident #8) of seventeen residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #7 received a physician order for isolation precautions. The facility failed to ensure Resident #8 had physician orders for oxygen. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving the appropriate care and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure three (Residents #27, #49, and #81) of twelve residents received services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of needs. The facility staff failed to ensure call buttons were within reach for Residents #27, # 49 and # 81. This failure could affect residents who needed assistance with activities of daily living and could result in needs not being met increasing risk for decreased quality of life, self-worth, and dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible for one (200 hall) of four halls reviewed for environment. The facility failed to ensure equipment stored on 200 hall was locked. This failure could place residents at risk for falls and/or injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, medical records were maintained on each resident that were complete, accurately documented, readily accessible, and systematically organized for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #247) reviewed for medical records. The facility failed to ensure Resident #247 's diagnosis documented in the clinical records were accurately transcribed to match her hospital discharge diagnoses. Facility recorded Resident #247 had a diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease (A disorder of the central nervous system that affects movement, often including tremors). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately consult with the resident's physician; and notify, the resident representative(s) when there was a deterioration in resident's health condition for one (Resident #3) of three residents reviewed for skin conditions. The WCN failed to notify Resident #3's physician and responsible party of the deterioration of a pressure ulcer on the right heel. On 9/28/2023 the wound measured 2cm x 1.5cm and remained unchanged until 10/19/2023 when the wound measured 6x6 cm. The WCN failed to notify Resident #3's physician and responsible party of the presence of a new pressure injury along the inner edge of the right foot, extending from near the heel to the bunion region of the big toe. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing for 1 (Resident #3) of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3 did not experience a worsening of an existing pressure ulcer and did not develop a new pressure ulcer. The pressure ulcer on the rt heel increased in size and a new pressure injury (inner edge of the right foot) was identified on 10/12/2023. The facility failed to ensure there was documentation in the clinical record in the form of the wound weekly observation tool documenting the occurrence of the new wound on the inner edge of the right foot. [...]
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 diseases and infections for 1 (Resident #4) of 5 residents observed for infection control. WCN failed to sanitize the surface of the dresser where the wound care supplies were first placed upon entry into Resident #4's room. WCN failed to perform hand hygiene after each glove change during wound care. WCN failed to change gloves after completing the treatment on one wound before beginning treatment on another wound. WCN failed to place a clean barrier between the open wound on Resident #4's right heel and the bed sheet after removal of the old dressing. [...]
7 fire safety citations on file: 2 on June 17, 2026, 3 on April 17, 2025, 2 on February 28, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| September 5, 2025 | Fine | $17,345 |
| September 4, 2024 | Fine | $24,093 |
| October 31, 2023 | Fine | $55,487 |
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 | 0.53 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.26 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.23 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.94 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 27.8% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 14.3% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.11 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 3.26 on weekends, 16% 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 3.53 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 | 0.53 | 3.89 | 3.26 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 88 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.48 | 0.56 | 3.62 | 3.13 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 90 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.39 | 0.50 | 3.54 | 3.02 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 96 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.53 | 0.45 | 3.74 | 2.99 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 93 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Texas, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.33 | 0.40 | 3.50 | 2.93 | 2.2% | 0.7% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
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 | 11.3 | 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 | 5.3 | 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 | 20.0 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.0 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 27.6 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.0 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.0 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Green Valley Healthcare 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 (49.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
49.9% 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. 88 eligible stays.
11.8% 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. 110 eligible stays.
9.6% 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. 56 eligible stays.
50.0% this home
Median of homes: Texas57.3% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 30 residents counted.
2.3% 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. 44 residents counted.
4.2% 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. 44 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. 21 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: EASTLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Nexion Health, a group of 51 nursing homes averaging 2.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eastland Memorial Hospital District | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 04/01/2017 |
| Wright, Laban | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 11/10/2021 | |
| Wright, Laban | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/10/2021 | |
| Nexion Health at North Richland Hills Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2017 | |
| Fallon, John | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| Kirley, Francis | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| Lee, Brian | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| Oswald, John | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/22/2022 | |
| Pierce, Daniel | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/16/2021 | |
| Riner, Meera | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2017 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Texas. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.