2300 Jack Finney Blvd, Greenville, TX 75402 · Hunt County · (903) 455-7942
126 certified beds, about 85 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1999
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675774 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 28, 2025, inspectors cited 5 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
None of its 32 health citations since March 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.26 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.39 of those hours.
48.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to The Ensign Group, an affiliated group of 344 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 32 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals, to meet the needs of each resident for 3 (100 Hall Med Aide Cart, 100 Hall Nurses Cart, and 400 Hall Nurses Cart) of 4 carts and 1 resident (Resident #100) of 8 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure:- LVN K responsible for100 Hall Med Aide Cart, counted controlled drugs every shift change.- RN B responsible for 100 Hall Nurses Cart, counted controlled drugs every shift change.- RN L responsible for 400 Hall Nurses Cart, counted controlled drugs every shift change. - ADON A, RN B, RN F, LVN C, LVN D and LVN E documented on Resident #100's MAR for administering prn hydrocodone-acetaminophen 10-325 mg tablets. [...]
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 2 of 12 residents (Resident #95, and Resident #24) observed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure Hospice Aide G used the required PPE and perform hygiene for Resident #95, who was on enhanced barrier precautions due to her Foley catheter and wound while providing the resident a bath and failed to place soiled linen in a plastic bag and not in the roommate's wheelchair on 08/27/25. 2. The facility failed to ensure CNA N changed gloves during incontinent care for Resident #24 on 08/27/2025. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide the necessary services for residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for 1 (Resident #10) of 6 residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to ensure Resident #10 had her fingernails cleaned and trimmed on 8/26/25. This failure could place residents who were dependent on staff for ADL care at risk for loss of dignity, risk for infections and a decreased quality of life. Record review of Resident #10's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #10 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses included type 2 diabetes mellitus, cognitive communication deficit, and need for assistance with personal care. [...]
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 and to restore continence to the extent possible for one (Resident #55) of two residents reviewed for foley catheter (a thin, flexible tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) care. The facility failed to ensure CNA N and CNA P maintained the foley catheter drainage bag below Resident #55's bladder during a mechanical lift transfer on 08/27/25. This failure placed residents at risk for the development and/or worsening of urinary tract infections and dislodgement of the foley catheter. Record review of Resident #55's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that drugs and biologicals were stored properly in locked compartments for one of five medication carts (medication cart for hall 300) reviewed for storage of Drugs and Biologicals. The facility failed to ensure RN F locked his medication cart for hall 300 on 08/27/2025. This failure could place the residents at risk of accessing/opening the cart causing accidental overdose or misuse of medications and not receiving the full benefit of the medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident had the right to be free from abuse for 1 of 16 (Resident #1) residents reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to protect Resident #1 from verbal and physical abuse from Resident #2 on [DATE]. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The noncompliance began on [DATE] and ended on [DATE]. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could place residents at risk for physical and verbal abuse, psychosocial harm, and decreased quality of life. Findings Include: 1. Record review of the face sheet dated [DATE] indicated Resident #1 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, muscle weakness, and cognitive communication deficit. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that the resident environment remained free of accident hazards and each resident was provided adequate supervision to prevent injuries for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #3) reviewed for accident hazards. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3 did not fall during a mechanical lift transfer on 12/17/24 when NA B performed a mechanical lift transfer (uses a specialized device to safely move individuals with limited mobility from one place to another) by herself. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The noncompliance began on 12/17/24 and ended on 12/23/24. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could place residents at risk for injury during mechanical lift transfers.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights for 1 of 5 (Resident #1) residents reviewed for care plans, The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's code status was properly care planned. This failure could place the residents at increased risk of not having their individual needs met and a decreased quality of life. 1. Record review of the face sheet dated 1/30/25 indicated Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old male re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, Alzheimer's, heart failure, and hypertension (elevated blood pressure). Record review of the physician orders dated 1/30/25 for physician orders active as of 1/3/25 indicated Resident #1 had an order for Code Status: DNR starting 6/4/24. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to not use any individual working in the facility as a nurse aide for more than four months, on a full-time basis, unless that individual is competent to provide nursing and nursing related services; and that individual has completed a training and competency evaluation program, or a competency evaluation program approved by the State for 4 of 4 Student Nurse Aide (NA) reviewed for training and competency ( NA B, NA C, NA D and NA E). The facility failed to ensure NA B, NA C, NA D and NA E were certified nurse aides and had the appropriate training/competency to provide care to residents within four months of hire. This failure could place residents at risk for injury or receiving improper care by unlicensed personnel.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals, to meet the needs of each resident for 2 medication carts (Nurses cart hall 300 and Med Aide Cart Hall 400) of 4 medication carts reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure: 1- RN A, responsible for Nurses Cart hall 300, removed medications in unsecure containers from the Nurses Cart. 2- MA C, responsible for Med Aide Cart hall 400, removed medications in unsecure containers from the Med Aide Cart. These failures could place residents at risk of not having the medication available due to possible drug diversion and at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of the medication. Findings Included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received food that accommodated their preferences for four (Resident #66, Resident #250, Resident #73, Resident #1) of 24 residents reviewed for dietary services. The facility failed to honor Resident #250's preference for no pork. The facility failed to provide snacks for dialysis for Resident #66 and Resident #73. The facility failed to provide Resident #1 with food that accommodated his preferences. This failure could place residents at risk for not having their choices and food preferences accommodated, possible weight loss and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the facility's only kitchen 1. The facility failed to ensure food items in the facility refrigerator, freezer and dry storage were dated or labeled. 2. The facility failed to ensure dented cans were stored away from the main dry storage area. 3. The facility failed to ensure Dietary manager checked food temperature before serving during lunch meal service on 5/29/24. These failures could affect residents who received their meals from the facility's only kitchen, by placing them at risk for food-borne illness if consumed and food contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, the residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for one of 21 residents (Resident #44) reviewed for quality of care. The facility staff failed to ensure Resident #44's splint was placed on his right arm and hand on 06/04/24 and 06/05/24 per physician orders. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving the care and treatment needed to meet their needs and could result in decreased Range of Motion and worsening of contractures.
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 three of five residents (Resident #52, Resident #70, and Resident #85) reviewed for catheter care. 1. The facility failed to ensure CNA D and CNA E maintained the foley catheter drainage bag below Resident #52's bladder during a mechanical lift transfer. 2. The facility failed to ensure RN P maintained Resident #70's foley catheter drainage bag below the bladder level during wound care on 06/03/24. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #85's catheter bag did not had contact with the floor. This failure placed residents at risk for not receiving care appropriate to address their incontinence.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to label drugs and biologicals used in the facility in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable for 1 (300 hall nurses' medication cart) of 4 medication carts reviewed for pharmacy services in that: The facility failed to ensure the 300 Hall medication cart had: 1- 1 insulin pens with no label and with an expired opened date. 2- 1 insulin pen for Resident #250 with no opened date. These failures could affect residents resulting in diminished effectiveness, and not receiving the therapeutic benefits of the medications.
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 three of sixteen residents (Resident #78, Resident #13 and Resident #51) observed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure that CNA D performed hand hygiene while providing incontinence care to Resident #78 on 06/04/24. 2. The facility failed to ensure that CNA F changed his gloves and performed hand hygiene while providing incontinence care to Resident #13 on 06/04/24. 3. The facility failed to ensure that CNA L changed her gloves and performed hand hygiene while providing incontinence care to Resident #51 on 06/04/24. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services including procedures that established a system of records of receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs in sufficient detail to ensure an accurate reconciliation for 4 of 5 carts (Carts 1, 2, 3, and 4) reviewed for securing controlled drugs. The facility failed to ensure all controlled drugs were received and counted according to facility procedure when nursing staff failed to document the count of controlled drugs on the medication carts. MA A failed to secure controlled drugs on cart #3. This failure could place residents at risk for misappropriation of their medications or not receiving the therapeutic benefits from medications because there are not available.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive resident-centered assessment of each resident's cognitive, medical, and functional capacity in a timely manner for 4 of 20 residents (Resident's #7, #23, #27, and #129) reviewed for comprehensive assessments and timing. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #129's cognitive status was assessed. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #7, #23, and #27's cognitive and mood statuses were assessed. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their needs identified and met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide food that was palatable and served at an appetizing temperature for 8 of 20 residents reviewed for palatable food. (Resident #239, Resident #240, and 6 residents in a confidential group). The facility failed to provide palatable food served at an appetizing temperature for Resident #239, Resident #240, and 6 residents in a confidential group. This failure could place residents who ate food from the kitchen at risk of weight loss, altered nutritional status, and diminished quality of life.
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 safety in the facility's only kitchen. The facility failed to ensure: 1. The juice machine spigot was clean 2. The microwave was clean and free of food debris. 3. The cooking grease in the deep fryer was kept clean. These failures could place residents at risk for foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident had the right to make choices about aspects of his or her life in the facility that were significant to the resident for 1 of 24 resident (Resident #12) reviewed for self-determination. The facility failed to ensure CNA E assisted Resident #12 with a bed bath when he requested it. This failure could place residents at risk for being denied the opportunity to exercise his or her autonomy regarding things that are import in their life and decrease their quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and comfortable environment for 1 of 24 resident room (room [ROOM NUMBER]A) reviewed for a homelike environment. The facility failed to repair deep scratches that exposed the sheetrock and dents with cracks on the wall behind the head of the bed in room [ROOM NUMBER]A. This failure could place residents at risk for a diminished quality of life and a diminished clean well-kept environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure prompt efforts were made to resolve grievances for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #12) reviewed for grievances. The facility did not ensure a grievance was filed for Resident #12's black blanket when it was not returned from the laundry. These failures could place residents at risk for grievances not being addressed or resolved promptly.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure an accurate MDS was completed for 2 of 20 residents (Resident's #38 and #76) reviewed for MDS assessment accuracy. 1. The facility failed to accurately document oral status for Resident #38 on the MDS assessment. 2. The facility failed to accurately complete a nursing home discharge MDS assessment for Resident #76. These failures 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 coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program (PASRR) to the maximum extent practicable to avoid duplicative testing and effort for 2 of 21 residents (Resident #52 and Resident #2) reviewed for PASRR. The facility failed to indicate on the PASRR level 1 screening completed by the facility that Resident #52 had a mental illness. The facility failed to coordinate Resident #2's annual IDT PASSR meeting. This failure could affect residents with mental illnesses and place them at risk of not being assessed to receive needed services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to meet resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 20 residents reviewed for care plans. (Resident #38) The facility failed to ensure Resident #38's oral or dental status was care planned. These failures could place the residents at increased risk of not having their individual needs met and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the comprehensive care plan was reviewed by the interdisciplinary team and that the resident representative was invited to participate in developing the care plan and making decisions about his or her care for 1 of 24 resident reviewed for care plan timing and revision. The facility failed to ensure Resident #26's resident representative was invited to participate in the development, review, and revision of her care plan. This failure could place residents at risk of not being able to attain or maintain their highest practicable level of physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that it was free of medication error rate of 5 percent or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 27.78%, based on 10 errors out of 36 opportunities, which involved 1 of 6 residents (Resident #231) reviewed for medication administration. The facility failed to ensure Resident #231 received Eliquis (prevent blood clots), escitalopram (treat depression), Namenda (treat dementia), Protonix (treat acid reflux), potassium chloride (mineral supplement), vitamin B12 (supplement), cholecalciferol (supplement), calcium (supplement), ocuvel (supplement), and magox (supplement). This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of their medications or receiving them as prescribed, per physician orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assist residents in obtaining routine dental services to meet the needs of 1 of 1 (Resident #38) residents reviewed for dental services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #38 received dental services when she had carious, missing, loose, and broken teeth. 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 and as prescribed by the physician for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #48 and Resident #26) reviewed for therapeutic diets. The facility failed to ensure Resident #48 received a pureed diet as ordered by the physician. The facility failed to ensure Resident #26 received a mechanical soft diet as ordered by the physician. This failure could place residents at risk for poor intake, weight loss, unmet nutritional needs, choking, and aspiration (when food or drinks enter the lungs). Findings Included: 1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary storage of resident's food items for 2 of 7 residents reviewed for personal food safety. (Resident's #2 and Resident #23) The facility did not implement the personal food policy related to personal refrigerators for Resident's #2 and #23. These failures could place the residents at risk for food borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a quality assessment and assurance committee consisting at a minimum the required committee members for 2 of 5 meetings (November 2022, and December 2022) reviewed for QAPI. The facility did not ensure the Administrator attended their QAPI meetings in November 2022, and December 2022. This failure could place residents at risk for quality deficiencies being unidentified, no appropriate plans of action developed and implemented, and no appropriate guidance developed.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Texas | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.26 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.39 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.93 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.84 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.04 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 48.1% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 28.6% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.81 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 3.40 on weekdays and 2.93 on weekends, 14% 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 3.28 in April to June 2025 to 3.26 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 | 3.26 | 0.39 | 3.40 | 2.93 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 85 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.16 | 0.35 | 3.30 | 2.81 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 89 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.24 | 0.34 | 3.39 | 2.86 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 88 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.28 | 0.29 | 3.44 | 2.86 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 90 |
| 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 | 17.1 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.7 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.5 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.0 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 28.5 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.1 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.7 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Legend Healthcare and Rehabilitation - Greenville's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (52.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
52.6% 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. 163 eligible stays.
10.9% 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. 173 eligible stays.
7.3% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Texas: 4 better, 11 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 105 eligible stays.
90.0% 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. 50 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Texas0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 96 residents counted.
1.7% 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. 96 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. 22 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 The Ensign Group, a group of 344 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fannin County Hospital Authority | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 04/01/2017 |
| Niccum, Kevin | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| Rushing, Gina | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/05/2016 | |
| Sanderson, Clark | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/29/2012 | |
| Jack Finney Healthcare, Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2017 | |
| Niccum, Kevin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| Ensign Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2017 | |
| National Health Investors, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/29/2016 | |
| Texas Nhi Investors, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/29/2016 | |
| Niccum, Kevin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/14/2025 | |
| Rushing, Gina | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/14/2025 |
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.