150 S.e. 47th Street, Paris, TX 75462 · Lamar County · (903) 784-3100
90 certified beds, about 80 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2011
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 676294 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 4, 2026, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 46 health citations since September 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $10,358 in the last three years; the largest was $10,358, and the latest is dated February 4, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.40 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.49 of those hours.
46.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Advanced Healthcare Solutions, an affiliated group of 28 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 46 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 5 (Resident #3) residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure that the Wound Care Treatment Nurse K notified the physician when Resident #3 was noted to have an open wound to the right side of his scrotum on 02/02/2026. This failure could place residents at risk of complications which include worsening existing wounds, development of new wounds, and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 5 (Resident #3) residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure that CNA L notified the charge nurse of Resident #3's open wound on the right side of the scrotum on 02/01/2026. This failure could place residents at risk of complications which include worsening of existing wounds, development of new wounds, and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to keep residents informed, in advance, of the care to be furnished and the type of care giver or professional that would furnish the care for 14 of 18 residents reviewed for laboratory services. (Anonymous Residents #1, AR#2, AR #4, AR#5, AR#7, AR#8, AR#9, AR#10, AR#11, AR#12, AR#14, AR#15, AR#16, and AR#17) 1. The facility failed to protect and promote the rights of Anonymous Residents #1, AR#2, AR #4, AR#5, AR#7, AR#8, AR#9, AR#10, AR#11, AR#12, AR#14, AR#15, AR#16, and AR#17 by failing to keep them informed of medical procedures and results. This failure could place residents at risk of decreased psychosocial wellbeing, decreased privacy and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow the menu to ensure the meals served met the nutritional needs of residents for 1 of 1 meal (the lunch meal), as evidenced by: The facility failed to ensure the Dietary Manager followed the menu for the lunch meal on 02/02/2026. This failure could place residents at risk of weight loss, not having their nutritional needs met, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and provide care in a manner that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 7 of 18 anonymous residents reviewed for resident rights (Anonymous Resident (AR) AR#7, AR#8, AR#10, AR#12, AR#13, AR#16, AR#18). The facility failed to protect and promote the rights of Anonymous Residents #7, AR #8, AR #10, AR#12, AR#13, AR#16, and AR#18 by failing to wait for permission to enter the resident's room after knocking. These failures could place residents at risk for decreased self-esteem, decreased privacy and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and records reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment and described the services that were to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 3 (Resident #7, Resident #29, and Resident #67) of 18 residents reviewed for care plans. Resident #7 had no care plan developed for her bilateral lower extremity limited range of motion. The care plan for Resident #29 had interventions for a fall mat at bedside that was not implemented. Resident #67 had no care plan developed for his left lower extremity contracture. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure an accurate MDS assessment was completed for 1 of 18 residents reviewed for MDS accuracy. (Resident #17) The facility failed to accurately code Resident #17's use of high-risk drug class medications (drug classes, including antipsychotics, anticoagulants, benzodiazepines, hypnotics, opioids, antiplatelets, hypoglycemics (including insulin), diuretics, and, newly added, anticonvulsants). This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving needed care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain grooming and personal hygiene for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for ADLs (Resident #2). The facility failed to provide assistance for Resident #2 with the removal of facial hair on 02/02/2026. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving services/care and decreased quality of life. Findings Include: 1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents with limited range of motion received appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and/or to prevent further decrease in range of motion for 2 of 5 residents with limited range of motion (Resident #7 and Resident #67) Resident #7 had limited range of motion to bilateral lower extremities with no services to prevent further decrease in range of motion. Resident #67 had an order for a knee brace to prevent further contracture that was not carried out. These failures could place residents at risk of not having their individualized needs met, decreased range of motion and a decline in their quality of care and life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences for 1 out of 5 residents (Resident #35) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to have Resident #35's oxygen sign outside the door on 02/02/2026 and 02/03/2026. This failure could place residents who receive oxygen for respiratory care at risk of safety accidents, including fire hazards and potential harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who are trauma survivors receive culturally competent, trauma-informed care in accordance with professional standards of practice and accounting for residents' experiences and preferences in order to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the resident for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #9) reviewed for trauma-informed care. The facility did not ensure Resident #9 had an accurate trauma screen that identified possible triggers when Resident #9 had a history of trauma. This failure could place residents at an increased risk for severe psychological distress due to re-traumatization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments for 1 of 21 residents reviewed. (Resident #50)The facility failed to securely store wound care treatment chemicals (Povidone-Iodine 10% Solution and .9% Sodium Chloride Irrigation Solution) for Resident #50. This failure could place residents at risk for adverse reactions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide an ongoing program of activities in accordance with the comprehensive assessment to meet the interests and the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for activities. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's Activities Evaluation was accurately completed on 09/09/2024. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 was provided in-room activities in August 2024, September 2024, and October 2024. This failure could place residents at risk for not having activities to meet their interests or needs and a decline in their physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide food that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 8 of 81 residents residents (Residents #68, #79, #3, #11, #62, #48, #45, and #13) and 1 of 3 meals (lunch meal) reviewed for palatability, attractiveness, and appetizing. The dietary staff failed to provide food that was palatable and appetizing temperature for lunch meal observed on 11/5/24. Resident's #68, #79, #3, #11, #62, #48, #45, and #13 complained that food tasted bad, was not cooked properly and was served cold. These failures could place residents at risk of decreased food intake, hunger, and unwanted weight loss.
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 3 of 6 residents (Resident #2, Resident #53, and Resident #72) reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure LVN E and CNA F provided proper incontinent care to Resident #2. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #53's bagged, dirty briefs were taken out of her bathroom. 3. The facility failed to ensure CNA H provided proper catheter care to Resident #72, and the facility failed to ensure CNA H followed enhanced barrier precautions when she failed to wear gloves as she repositioned and touched Resident #72's sheets. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for 1 of 23 residents (Resident #76) reviewed for accommodation of needs. The facility treatment nurse failed to ensure Resident #76's lunch meal was fully accessible for her to eat on 11/04/2024 at the lunch meal, when the Treatment Nurse served Resident #76 her lunch meal and did not remove it off the tray and kept her plate on the warmer and covered with a lid. This failure could have placed resident at risk of having nutritional needs gone unmet.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure prompt efforts were made to resolve grievances for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #40) reviewed for grievances. The facility did not ensure a grievance was filed and Resident #40 was appropriately apprised of progress toward resolution when Resident #40's pink pants were not returned from the laundry. This failure could place residents at risk for grievances not being addressed or resolved promptly.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 1 of 23 residents (Resident #63) reviewed for ADL (activities of daily living) care. The facility failed to provide nail care by removing black material from under fingernails for dependent female Resident #63 on 11/04/2024,11/05/2024, and 11/06/2024. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving care and services to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of the bladder and had an indwelling urinary catheter received appropriate treatment and services for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #72) reviewed for urinary catheters. The facility failed to ensure CNA H provided proper catheter care to Resident #72 on 11/06/2024. This failure could place residents at risk of injury, urinary tract infections, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that respiratory care was provided consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 2 residents (Residents #2) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 had an order for oxygen. This failure could place residents requiring respiratory care at risk for respiratory complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who are trauma survivors receive culturally competent, trauma-informed care in accordance with professional standards of practice and accounting for residents' experiences and preferences in order to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the resident for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #15 and Resident #46) reviewed for trauma-informed care 1. The facility did not ensure Resident #46 had an accurate trauma screen that identified possible triggers when Resident #46 had a history of trauma. 2. The facility did not ensure Resident #15's trauma screening was completed with triggers upon admission to the facility. These failures could place residents at an increased risk for severe psychological distress due to re-traumatization.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents were free of significant medication errors for 2 of 23 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. (Resident # 15 and Resident # 68) The facility failed to ensure Resident #15's Metoprolol and Hydralazine (blood pressure medication) was not administered when her blood pressure was outside of the ordered parameters (systolic blood pressure less than 100 and diastolic blood pressure less than 60) on 10/06/2024. The facility failed to ensure Resident #68's Hydralazine (blood pressure medication) was not administered when her blood pressure was outside of the ordered parameters on 10/24/2024. These failures could place the resident at risk of medical complications and not receiving the therapeutic effects of their medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature controls and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for 1 of 4 medication carts. LVN M failed to ensure the 100 Hall medication cart was locked when it was left unattended while she went to the restroom. This failure could place residents at risk of injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in (1 of 1) kitchen reviewed for dietary services. 1) The Dietary staff failed to label and date all food items. 2) The Dietary staff failed to dispose of expired foods items located in the refrigerator and freezer. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to promote antibiotic stewardship by ensuring the appropriate use of antibiotic therapy and providing written rationale, by the provider, when an antibiotic was used despite criteria, to determine the appropriate the use of an antibiotic for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #8) reviewed for antibiotic use. The facility failed to ensure Resident #8 had documented signs and symptoms to support the use of prescribed antibiotics. This failure could place residents receiving antibiotics at risk for unnecessary antibiotic use, inappropriate antibiotic use, and increased antibiotic-resistant infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation or resident property, and exploitation for 1 of 17 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to keep Resident #1 free from abuse when CNA A roughly provided incontinent care to him on 06/07/2024. This failure could place residents at risk of abuse, humiliation, intimidation, fear, shame, agitation and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events that caused the allegation involved abuse or resulted in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures for 1 of 17 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse and neglect. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on 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 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for infection control practices. 1. CNA A failed to change her gloves and perform hand hygiene after removing Resident #1's soiled brief on 06/07/2024. 2. CNA A failed to dispose of Resident #1's soiled brief properly after removing it during incontinent care on 06/07/2024. These failures could place residents at risk of exposure to communicable diseases, cross-contamination, and infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in (1 of 1) kitchen reviewed for dietary services, in that: 1) The facility failed to label and date all food items. 2) Dietary staff failed to dispose of expired foods items. 3) Dietary Staff failed to store (1) dented can in a separate area. 4) Dietary Staff failed to effectively reseal, label and date frozen food items. 5) Dietary Staff failed to label and date beverage items in the dining room for resident use. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review, the facility failed to develop or implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to meet resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs identified in the comprehensive assessment for 3 of 20 residents reviewed for care plans. (Resident #25, #34, and #60) 1. The facility failed to care plan Resident #25's refusal of showers. 2. The facility failed to care plan that Resident #34 was PASRR (Preadmission Sceening and Resdient Review) positive. 3. The facility failed to care plan Resident #60's cracked teeth. These failures could place residents at risk for inaccurate care plans and decreased quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the meals served met the nutritional needs of residents for 1 of 1 meals (the lunch meal) reviewed for nutritional adequacy, as evidenced by: The facility served the residents on a pureed food consistency diet the wrong scoop size servings on the buttered broccoli florets for the noon time (lunch) meal on 9/26/23. This failure had the potential to affect all residents in the facility who required pureed food consistency by placing them at risk of not receiving adequate nutritive food value needed to promote/maintain health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide food that was palatable, attractive and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 1 of 3 meals reviewed for palatability and temperature. The facility failed to provide food that was palatable and appetizing temperature for 1 of 3 meal observed on 9/26/23 (lunch) meal. These failures could place residents at risk of decreased food intake, hunger, and unwanted weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to collaborate with hospice representatives and coordinate the hospice care planning process for each resident receiving hospice services, to ensure quality of care for the resident, ensuring communication with the hospice medical director, the resident's attending physician, and others participating in the provision of care for 3 of 3 resident (Residents #31,#44 and #51) reviewed for hospice services. The facility did not ensure Resident #31, #44 and #51's hospice records were a part of their records in the facility. This failure could place residents who receive hospice services at-risk of receiving inadequate end-of-life care due to a lack of documentation, coordination of care and communication of resident needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to promote antibiotic stewardship by ensuring the appropriate use of antibiotic therapy and providing written rationale, by the provider, when an antibiotic was used despite criteria, to determine the appropriate the use of an antibiotic for 4 of 4 residents and reviewed antibiotic use. (Resident #21, Resident #46, Resident #48, Resident #64) The facility failed to ensure Resident #21, Resident #46, Resident #48, and Resident #64 had documented signs and symptoms, appropriate lab work, and diagnoses to support the use of prescribed antibiotics. These failures could place residents receiving antibiotics at risk for unnecessary antibiotic use, inappropriate antibiotic use, and increased antibiotic-resistant infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop, implement, and maintain annually an effective training program for existing staff, consistent with their expected roles for 12 of 20 employees (RN D, Dietician, Occupational Therapist F, Physical Therapist G, Dietary Manager, Social Worker, CNA H, CNA K, CNA L, CNA M, Maintenance Director, Housekeeping Supervisor) reviewed for required trainings. The facility failed to ensure the Maintenance Director, the Housekeeping Supervisor, Occupational Therapist F, Physical Therapist G, CNA H, CNA K, CNA L, and CNA M received HIV and restraint training upon hire. The facility failed to ensure RN D, the Dietary Manager, the Social Worker, received annual HIV and restraint training. The facility failed to ensure the Dietician received annual restraint training. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and provide care in a manner that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 1 of 20 (Resident #33) residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure RN D fed Resident #33 while sitting down. This failure could place residents at an increased risk of embarrassment, isolation, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents have the right to be informed in advance, by the physician or other practitioner or professional, of the risks and benefits of proposed care, of treatment and treatment alternatives and to choose the option he or she prefers for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for the right to be informed. (Resident #2 and Resident #33) 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 had a signed psychotropic consent form for alprazolam (antianxiety medication), Belsomra (sedative-hypnotic medication), and Remeron (antidepressant medication). 2. The facility did not ensure Resident #33 had a signed informed consent based on information of the need, benefits, and risk prior to administering Ativan (a medication used to treat anxiety). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' rights to formulate an advance directive for 2 of 18 residents reviewed for advanced directives. (Resident #10 and Resident # 73) The facility failed to ensure Resident #10 and Resident # 73's code status was accurate and consistent with all records at the facility. This failure placed the residents at risk of not having their end of life wishes honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to consult with the resident's physician when there was a significant change in the resident's physical and mental status that is, a deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications for 2 of 20 (Residents #46 and #135) residents reviewed for notification of change of condition. 1. The facility did not ensure RN D notified the physician when Resident #46 fell on [DATE]. 2. The facility failed to notify and consult with the physician about the changes in Resident #135's fall. This failure could place residents at risk of a delay in treatment, and a worsening of their condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to implement written policies and procedures to prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation for 3 of 20 staff members (Physical Therapist, House Keeping and Food Service Supervisor) reviewed for develop and implement abuse policies. The facility failed to ensure the Human Resource (HR) Coordinator implemented the facility's abuse/neglect policy and procedure when she failed to complete an Employee Misconduct Registry (EMR) check for CNA G upon hire and annually for the Maintenance Supervisor, Activity Director, and Food Service Supervisor. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of property.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the resident status for 2 of 20 residents (Resident #34 and Resident #42) reviewed for MDS assessment accuracy. The facility did not ensure Resident #34's and Resident #42's MDS assessments were accurately coded to reflect their level II PASRR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) status for mental illness. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving care and services to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents requiring respiratory care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practices for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #17, #69) reviewed for respiratory care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #17's oxygen was set at 3 LPM as ordered by the physician. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #69 oxygen concentrator filters were cleaned. These failures could place residents who receive respiratory care at risk for developing respiratory complications and a decreased quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure all drugs were stored in a locked compartment, only accessible by authorized personnel, and labeled and dated correctly for 2 of 2 nurses' carts (Nurse Cart Hall 1&4, and Nurse Cart Hall 2&3) reviewed for drugs and biologicals and storage of medications. The facility failed to ensure Nurse Cart Hall 1&4, and Nurse Cart Hall 2&3 were secured and unable to be accessed by unauthorized personnel. The facility failed to ensure 1 insulin pen (device used to administer insulin to residents with high blood sugars) on the Nurse Cart Hall 2&3 was dated when opened. These failures could place residents at risk of misuse of medications, drug diversions, and not receiving the therapeutic benefit of medications
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to assist residents in obtaining routine dental services to meet the needs of 1 of 20 (Resident #60) residents reviewed for dental services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #60 obtained prompt dental services when he had cracked teeth and a tooth infection. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving needed dental care and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for 2 of 9 residents (Resident #2 and Resident #25). 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 received her health shake with her lunch meal as ordered by the physician. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #25 received a mechanical soft diet during the lunch meal as ordered by the physician. These failures could place residents with a therapeutic diet at risk for poor intake, weight loss, not meeting their nutritional needs and choking.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure each resident received and the facility provided food that accommodates resident preferences 1 of 78 residents (Resident #29) reviewed for resident food preferences. The facility failed to ensure Resident #29 received her preferred meal choice. This failure placed residents at risk for not having their nutritional needs met and a decreased quality of life.
3 fire safety citations on file: 1 on February 4, 2026, 1 on November 6, 2024, 1 on September 27, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| February 4, 2026 | Fine | $10,358 |
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) | 3.40 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.49 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.82 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.00 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.90 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 46.3% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 40.0% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.33 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 3.63 on weekdays and 2.82 on weekends, 22% 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 3.27 in April to June 2025 to 3.40 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 | 3.40 | 0.49 | 3.63 | 2.82 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 80 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.47 | 0.40 | 3.70 | 2.90 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 79 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.40 | 0.43 | 3.62 | 2.84 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 78 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.27 | 0.35 | 3.47 | 2.77 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 83 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Texas, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.33 | 0.40 | 3.50 | 2.93 | 2.2% | 0.7% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texas, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.03 | $16.97 to $20.71 | 88,680 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.92 | $27.46 to $32.89 | 57,560 |
| Registered nurses | $46.14 | $38.06 to $50.53 | 271,380 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Texas | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.7 | 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 | 1.4 | 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 | 4.5 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.9 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 28.8 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.5 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Heritage House at Paris Rehab & Nursing's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (46.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
46.0% 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. 65 eligible stays.
11.9% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Texas: 0 better, 9 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 104 eligible stays.
7.2% 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. 60 eligible stays.
66.2% 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. 71 residents counted.
1.8% 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. 113 residents counted.
7.4% 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. 113 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. 4 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: HAMILTON COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Advanced Healthcare Solutions, a group of 28 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hooper, Grady | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/29/2024 | |
| Paris Hc LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 02/29/2024 | |
| Scheiner, Eliezer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/29/2024 | |
| Silberstein, Ari | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/29/2024 | |
| Ellenbogen, Moss | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2024 | |
| 150 47th Street LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 02/18/2025 | |
| Brass Tx Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/08/2025 | |
| Gold Tx Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/08/2025 | |
| Paris Hc LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/08/2025 | |
| Red Brass Holdco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/08/2025 | |
| Silver Tx Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/08/2025 | |
| Bennett, Kyle | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2024 | |
| Ganguly, Devabrata | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/18/2025 |
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.