600 W 52nd St., Texarkana, TX 75501 · Bowie County · (903) 792-6700
95 certified beds, about 46 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1995
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675561 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 2, 2026, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 40 health citations since October 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $89,633 in the last three years; the largest was $77,227, and the latest is dated August 18, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.15 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.41 of those hours.
57.4% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Stonegate Senior Living, an affiliated group of 24 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 40 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain physician orders for the resident's immediate care for 2 (Resident #45 and Resident #46) of 5 residents reviewed for admission physician orders. 1. The facility failed to obtain physician orders for the immediate care of Resident #45's surgical wounds, diet, and isolation status. 2. The facility failed to obtain physician orders for the immediate care of Resident #46's surgical wound, pressure wounds, diet, and isolation status. These failures could affect residents who were admitted or readmitted to the facility by placing them at risk for not receiving the appropriate care, medication, and treatment services.
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 4 (Resident #2, #5, #29, and #6) of 12 residents reviewed for care plans.1. The facility failed to develop a care plan for Resident #2's use of Eliquis (an anticoagulant medication that thins the blood and places the resident at an increased risk of bleeding and bruising more easily).2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the state mental health authority promptly after a significant change in their mental condition for 1 of 5 residents screened for PASRR (Resident # 37). The facility failed to refer a resident with a newly identified serious mental illness for a PASRR Resident Review following a significant change in status. Resident #37 received a new diagnosis of bipolar disorder on 07/24/2025; however, the facility did not complete a PASRR Level II Resident Review referral (form 1012) until 01/26/2026. This failure could delay the identification of specialized services and support needed to address the residents' mental health needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the baseline care plan that included the instructions for resident care needed to provide effective and person-centered care was completed and provided to the resident and/or their representative for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for new admissions (Resident #45) The facility did not complete a baseline care plan or have a baseline care plan meeting with Resident #45 within 48 hours of admission. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving care and services to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure dialysis services were provided consistently with professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 resident reviewed for dialysis services. (Residents #7)The facility failed to document Resident #7's Post (after) Dialysis assessment on his Dialysis Communication (Pre/Post-before/after) Forms on 5/04/26, 5/08/26, 5/13/26, 5/18/26 and 5/20/26. This failure could place residents who received dialysis at risk for complications and not receiving proper care and treatment to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary medications (is a medication used: In excessive doses (including duplicate therapy); or for excessive duration; or without adequate monitoring; or without adequate indication for its use; or in the presence of adverse consequences which indicate the dose should be reduced or discontinued) for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 had monitoring for an anticoagulant medication, Eliquis (an anticoagulant medication thins the blood and could cause serious, potentially fatal bleeding and bruising more easily). The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's order for Eliquis had an appropriate diagnosis. [...]
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 2 of 14 (Resident #6, Resident #45) residents reviewed for infection control practices. 1. The facility failed to wear PPE when providing direct care to Resident #6 on EBP. 2. The facility failed to wear PPE when providing direct care to Resident #45 on contact isolation. These failures could place residents at risk of exposure to communicable diseases, cross-contamination, and infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a therapeutic diet was offered when there were nutritional problems and the therapeutic diet was recommended for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility failed to put interventions in place when Resident # 1 had poor intake related to swallowing food, inability to consume meals as result of physical decline. Resident #1 had a wound and did not receive a dietician consult as needed. Resident #1 did not have updated care plan interventions related to her change in condition . This failure could cause residents to lose weight and not have interventions in place that could lead to significant weight loss. Record review of Resident #1's face sheet indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of abnormal weight loss. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assure the accurate dispensing and administering of all drugs and biologicals to meet the needs of each resident and determines that drug records are accurate to meet the needs of each resident, for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for medication administration. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 had an order for Acetaminophen/Tylenol 650 mg every 4 hours as needed for pain/fever in the Electronic Medication Administration Record per the facility's standing orders. The facility failed to ensure LVN A documented the administration of Acetaminophen/Tylenol 650 mg every 4 hours as needed for Resident #1 on 07/17/2025. [...]
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 the facility's only kitchen reviewed for food safety requirements. 1. The facility failed to ensure an opened box of powdered sugar was securely closed or stored in a secure container with a label and date. 2. The facility failed to ensure a plastic container with a lid, containing what appeared to be a red sauce in it, was labeled and dated. 3. The facility failed to ensure a plastic container with a lid, containing what appeared to be green beans, corn, and potatoes in it, was labeled and dated. 4. The facility failed to ensure a plastic bag containing an unknown meat with ice particles covering it was labeled and dated. 5. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for 3 of 13 residents and 1 of 1 dining room reviewed for environment. (Resident #1, Resident #33, and Resident #96) 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1, Resident #33, and Resident #96 had furniture in good repair. 2. The facility failed to ensure the activity cabinet in the dining room was in good repair. These failures placed residents at risk of injury, an uncomfortable environment, and a decrease in quality of life and self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, 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 3 of 13 residents (Resident #12, #22, and #196) reviewed for infection control practices. 1. The facility failed to ensure signage was located outside Resident #196's room to indicate he required transmission-based droplet precautions. 2. The facility failed to ensure CNA C used transmission-based droplet precautions when entering Resident #196's room. 3. The facility failed to ensure CNA L changed her gloves and perform hand hygiene during Resident #12's indwelling foley catheter care. 4. [...]
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 13 residents (Resident #12) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #12's catheter drainage bag was in a privacy bag. This failure could place residents at an increased risk of embarrassment and a diminished quality of life.
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 2 of 13 residents reviewed for activities. (Residents #2 and Resident #33) The facility failed to provide Residents #2 and Resident #33 with consistent, scheduled activities. 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure their activities program was directed by a qualified professional for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for Activity Director. The facility failed to employ a certified activities director. This failure could place the residents at risk of not receiving a program of activities that meets their assessed activity needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible and failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 13 residents (Resident #196) reviewed for accidents and supervision. The facility failed to ensure CNA H performed a safe mechanical lift transfer for Resident #196. This failure could place residents at risk of injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #12) reviewed for treatment and services related to indwelling catheters. 1. The facility failed to ensure CNA L changed her gloves and performed hand hygiene during Foley catheter care. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #12's indwelling Foley catheter had a catheter securement device to anchor the catheter to her leg. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #12's Foley catheter drainage bag was kept off the floor. These failures could place residents at risk for urinary tract infections, injuries, and a decreased quality of life.
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 1 of 1 resident (Resident #38) reviewed for trauma-informed care. The facility did not ensure Resident #38 had a trauma screening completed upon admission to the facility that identified possible triggers when Resident #38 had a history of trauma. This failure could put residents at an increased risk for psychological distress due to re-traumatization.
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 17 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4 had a dignified existence by allowing her to be covered in feces on 2/27/25. These failures could place residents at risk of humiliation, diminished quality of life, loss of dignity and loss of self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for 2 of 17 (Resident #1 and Resident #2) residents reviewed for call lights. The facility failed to ensure call lights were within reach while Resident #1 and Resident #2 were in bed. This failure could place residents at risk for a delay in assistance and decreased quality of life, self-worth, and dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the right to be free from abuse was provided for 1 of 18 reviewed for abuse. (Resident #3) The facility failed to ensure Resident #3 was free from abuse when CNA D told him, all you do is lie and that's why people don't want to deal with you. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who required colostomy, urostomy, or ileostomy services, received such care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #4) reviewed for ostomy care. The facility failed to provide Resident #4 with appropriate colostomy care resulting in her colostomy leaking and covering her in feces. This failure could place the resident at risk of skin irritation and breakdown from exposure to fecal matter.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review the facility failed to develop, and implement a comprehensive care plan to meet the medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #1's refusal of care, refusal to be repositioned, and refusal to take medications. This failure could place residents in the facility at an increased risk of a decline in physical or functional well-being, of not receiving necessary care or services, and having personalized plans developed to address their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment of residents for 1 of 14 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse and neglect in that: The facility failed to suspend an alleged perpetrator immediately following CNA A roughly handling Resident #1 during ADL care. The facility allowed CNA A to work 7 more shifts before suspension while investigation the abuse allegations, and the facility failed to report the abuse within 24 hours to the state agency. The ADON and CNA B failed to report the abuse to the abuse coordinator immediately. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) began on 04/09/2024 and ended on 04/17/2024. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility has failed to ensure that the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as possible and provide supervision to prevent avoidable accidents for 2 of 8 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident #3 and Resident #5) 1. The facility failed to ensure CNA D performed safe repositioning with two staff members during incontinent care for Resident #3 on 3/26/24, which resulted in Resident #3 falling off the bed and required stitches to the inside of her lip. 2. The facility failed to transfer Resident #5 with the required 2 people for a safe mechanical lift transfer from his bed to his chair. These failures could place residents at risk of injury from accident and hazards.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, 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 2 of 4 residents reviewed for resident rights. (Resident #1 and Resident #4) 1. The facility failed to treat Resident #1 with dignity and respect by denying his request to be repositioned in bed. 2. The facility failed to treat Resident #4 with dignity and respect when the previous Administrator told him he looked like a child molester on 03/25/24. These failures could place residents at risk for decreased quality of life, decreased self-esteem and increase anxiety.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for 2 of 14 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for resident abuse. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 1, was free from physical abuse when CNA A roughly placed his legs into the bed when he asked for assistance into bed. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 was free from abuse when CNA E verbally abused him on 4/09/24. These failures could place residents at risk of physical harm, mental anguish, and/or emotional distress.
Inspectors wroteBased on 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, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is 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, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency) for 1 of 14 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to report an allegation of physical abuse within 2 hours of the allegation being reported to the ADON on 04/09/2024. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to allow for private Resident Council meetings and without facility staff present for 5 of 5 Residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to provide a private space for Resident Council meetings. The facility failed to inform members of the Resident Council they could have their meetings in private and staff could only attend if invited. This failure placed residents at risk of not having the right to voice their concerns without staff being present or overhearing their concerns and to conduct resident council meetings without interference.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that pain management was provided to residents who require such services, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 10 residents reviewed for quality of care. (Resident #144) The facility failed to manage Resident #144's pain by not administering his ordered pain medication. This failure placed residents at risk for increased pain, decline in mobility, functioning, inability to perform activities of daily living and decreased quality of life. Findings Include: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments for 2 of 4 medication carts (100 hall cart and 300/400 hall cart) reviewed for pharmacy services. 1. The facility failed to lock 2 medication carts for hall 100 and 300/400 Halls split cart. 2. The facility failed to ensure LVN E removed expired eye drops from the nurse medication cart for 100-hall. These failures could place residents at risk of not having their medications available as prescribed, a drug diversion, and an adverse reaction to expired medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to promote resident self-determination through support of resident choice for 2 of 12 residents reviewed for resident rights. (Resident #32, Resident #35) 1. The facility did not assist Resident #32 out of bed as often as she preferred. 2. The facility failed to shower Resident #35 instead of a bed bath per his request. These failures could place dependent residents at risk for feelings of depression, lack self-determination and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for 1 of 12 residents reviewed for resident rights. (Resident #9) The facility failed to repair the wall behind the bed of Resident #9. This failure placed residents at risk of an unsafe or uncomfortable environment and a decrease in quality of life and self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living, received the necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for 2 of 12 residents reviewed for quality of life (Resident #21 and Resident #35). 1. The facility failed to provide scheduled bath/showers for Resident #21. 2. The facility failed to provide scheduled bath/showers and shave Resident #35. These failures could place residents who required assistance from staff for ADLs at risk of poor care, risk for skin breakdown, feelings of poor self-esteem, lack of dignity and health.
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 12 residents reviewed for quality of life. (Residents #32) 1. The facility failed to provide Residents #32 with consistent, scheduled activities . 2. The facility failed to provide Resident #32 with a calendar of scheduled activities. 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections (UTI) for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #193) who were reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure Resident# 193 had an indwelling urinary catheter (tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) securement/anchor device (used to secure an indwelling urinary catheter). This failure could place residents at risk for indwelling urinary catheter dislodgement, urethral (empties urine from the bladder and out of the body) damage, pain, and urinary tract infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain and ensure safe and sanitary storage of residents' food items for 1 of 6 resident personal refrigerators reviewed for food and nutrition services (Resident #11). The facility failed to ensure the refrigerator for Resident #11 did not contain expired and decomposing meat products. This failure could place resident at risk for food borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the resident status for 1 of 11 residents (Resident # 1) reviewed for MDS assessment accuracy. The facility failed to accurately reflect Resident #1 had pressure ulcers, wounds, or skin problems on his admission MDS assessment. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving care and services to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents with pressure ulcers received the necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for pressure injury. The facility failed to adequately document Resident #1's wounds upon admission. The facility failed to measure Resident #1's wounds upon admission. The facility failed to obtain initial wound care orders for Resident #1's wounds. The facility failed to provide appropriate wound care for Resident #1 from admission [DATE] until seen by wound care specialist 1/3/24. These failures could place residents at risk for deterioration of wounds.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide 30-day notice to the resident and the resident's representative(s) of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing and in a language and manner they understand before the resident was discharged for 1 of 1 (Resident #1) reviewed for Discharge Rights. The facility did not provide a written discharge notice to Resident #1 (who admitted on [DATE] and discharged on 01/16/23) or their representative prior to discharging the resident, not allowing the 30-day advance notice. The facility discharged Resident #1 to an acute hospital. This failure could place residents who are transferred or discharged from the facility, at risk for not receiving care and services to meet their needs upon discharge and the right to appeal.
7 fire safety citations on file: 3 on June 2, 2026, 1 on April 23, 2025, 3 on March 6, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| August 18, 2025 | Fine | $9,110 |
| September 4, 2024 | Fine | $77,227 |
| October 13, 2023 | Fine | $3,296 |
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) | 3.15 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.64 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.70 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.04 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 57.4% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 37.5% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.49 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 3.35 on weekdays and 2.64 on weekends, 21% 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 3.00 in April to June 2025 to 3.15 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 | 3.15 | 0.41 | 3.35 | 2.64 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 46 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.73 | 0.39 | 2.87 | 2.38 | 0.0% | 2 of 92 | 54 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.98 | 0.42 | 3.17 | 2.49 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 49 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.00 | 0.49 | 3.21 | 2.46 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 46 |
| 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 | 5.7 | 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 | 2.9 | 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 | 11.8 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.3 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.6 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Heritage Plaza Nursing Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (45.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
45.1% 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. 27 eligible stays.
10.5% 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. 40 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 23 eligible stays.
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: 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. 7 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: 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. 12 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: 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. 12 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: FANNIN COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY. CMS links this home to Stonegate Senior Living, a group of 24 nursing homes averaging 2.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fannin County Hospital Authority | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 03/31/2017 |
| Umb Bank National Association | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 09/23/2021 | |
| Sanderson, Clark | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/29/2012 | |
| Pf Heritage SNF Ops, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/23/2021 | |
| Stonegate Senior Living, LP | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 06/22/2022 | |
| Nash, Belinda | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/08/2024 | |
| Campbell, Scott | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 12/04/2025 | |
| Chance, James | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 12/04/2025 | |
| Fisher, James | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 12/04/2025 | |
| Langdon, Thomas | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 12/04/2025 | |
| McGehee, William | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 12/04/2025 | |
| Taylor, John | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 12/05/2025 | |
| Lifetime Wellness, Ltd. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/23/2021 | |
| Martus Financial Services, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/31/2023 | |
| Pf Heritage SNF Ops, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/04/2025 | |
| Pharmerica Drug Systems LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/27/2017 | |
| Preservation Freehold Company | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/23/2021 | |
| Rehab Pro LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/23/2021 | |
| Sanctuary LTC, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/23/2021 | |
| Stonegate Senior Living, LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/04/2025 | |
| Ferguson, Clay | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2025 | |
| Lynch, Kacey | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/13/2025 | |
| Nash, Belinda | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/08/2024 |
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.