18957 Us Hwy 175 W., Mabank, TX 75147 · Kaufman County · (903) 887-2436
90 certified beds, about 77 residents a day · Government - Hospital district · Medicare and Medicaid since 2018
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 676458 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 21, 2026, inspectors cited 13 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 33 health citations since February 2024, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $31,234 in the last three years; the largest was $16,801, and the latest is dated July 30, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.36 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.49 of those hours.
46.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Priority Management, an affiliated group of 38 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 33 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as possible for 6 of 6 residents (Resident's #30, # 70, #81, #40, #58, and #6) reviewed for accidents.1. The facility failed to ensure CNA E and CNA B locked the mechanical lift during a transfer for Resident #30 on 05/19/26.2. The facility failed to ensure the mechanical lift was locked when transferring Resident #70.3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #81 had bilateral landing mats when in bed. 4. The facility did not ensure Alcohol Wipes was not stored in Residents #40 and #58's bathroom.5. The facility failed to ensure Resident #6 did not have bath wash left out in the bathroom sitting on the toilet. These failures could place residents at risk of injury or harm.
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 in accordance with currently accepted professional principles and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions and the expiration date when applicable for 4 of 22 residents (Resident #6, Resident #38, Resident #8, and Resident #90) and 2 of 10 medication carts (Hall 500 hall nurse's medication cart and the hall 400 nurse medication cart) observed for medication storage.1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #6 did not have zinc oxide wound care cream in her bathroom left in the caddy by the sink.2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #38's Novolog (fast-acting insulin to control high blood sugar) insulin was dated when opened on Hall 400's nurse's medication cart.3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews 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 the 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 4 residents (Resident #44,Resident #75 and Resident #87) reviewed for hospice services.1. The facility failed to maintain Resident #44's hospice binder containing information related to hospice services provided for the resident such as the Physician certification of the terminal illness, the last two IDG also known as Interdisciplinary Group meetings (a regular, collaborative team review of a patient's care meetings),or updated recertification form.2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, 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 7 of 22 residents (Resident #52, Resident #4, Resident #87, Resident #91, Resident #12, Resident #82, and Resident #44) rooms reviewed for infection control practices and enhanced barrier precautions.1. The facility failed to ensure LVN F used the proper PPE while administering gastrostomy tube medications and feeding for Resident #52 on 05/20/2026. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4, Resident #87, Resident #91, and Resident #12 had their toothbrushes stored and labeled in the bathrooms to distinguish from one another. 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and provide care in a manner that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 1 of 22 residents (Resident #75) for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure MA L did not call Resident #75 a feeder while assisting her to eat on 05/18/2026. This failure could place residents at risk of decreased self-worth, loss of dignity, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, 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 1 of 5 residents (Residents #61) reviewed for reasonable accommodation. The facility failed to ensure Resident #61's call button was within reach while Resident #61 was in his bed on 05/18/26 and 05/19/26. This failure could place residents at risk of a delay in assistance and dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' right to formulate an advanced directive was provided for 2 of 22 residents (Residents #40 and #64) reviewed for advanced directives. 1. The facility did not ensure Resident #40's OOH-DNR included the legal guardian's signature, printed name, and date the document was signed. The facility did not ensure Resident #40's OOH-DNR included the date the document was signed by the two witnesses. 2. The facility did not ensure Resident #64s OOH-DNR included the physician's signature. These failures could place residents at risk of not having their end-of-life wishes honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents, 2 of 7 (Residents #56 and #49) reviewed for abuse. The facility did not ensure the Abuse Coordinator implemented their policy on reporting abuse to state agency for a resident-to-resident altercation that occurred on 12/05/25 between Resident #56 and Resident #49. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of abuse, neglect, and a decreased quality of life.
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 were reported immediately, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, for 2 of 7 (Residents #56 and #49) residents reviewed for reporting abuse. The facility did not report the resident-to-resident altercation between Resident #56 and Resident #49 to the State Survey Agency within 2 hours of being notified on 12/05/25. This failure to report could place the residents at risk for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure assessments were coordinated with Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) program under Medicated in subpart C to the maximum extent practicable to avoid duplicative testing and effort and coordination included incorporating the recommendations from the PASARR level II determination and the PASARR evaluation report into a resident's assessment, care planning, and transitions of care for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #5) reviewed for PASRR.The facility did not ensure the correct PASRR (a preliminary assessment completed for all individuals before admission to a Medicaid-certified nursing facility to determine whether they might have a mental illness or intellectual disability) Level 1 Screening was submitted to the local authority for Resident #5 who had a diagnosis of mental illness upon admission. [...]
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 (Resident #10) reviewed for respiratory care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #10's oxygen tube was changed weekly as ordered. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #10's water container was replaced when empty. These failures could place residents requiring respiratory care at risk for shortness of breath, respiratory distress, or complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who were 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 3 residents (Resident # 87 and Resident #46) reviewed for trauma-informed care.1. The facility did not ensure Resident #87's experienced trauma was identified in her trauma assessment, social history, and her baseline care plan. 2. The facility did not ensure Resident #46's trauma screening was completed upon admission to the facility. These failures could put residents at an increased risk for severe psychological distress due to re-traumatization.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to provide sufficient support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service for 1 out of 7 dietary staff. (Dietary Aide C). The facility failed to ensure that dietary staff (Dietary Aide C) serving in the kitchen maintained a current Food Handler Certificate. This failure could place residents who consumed food prepared from the kitchen at-risk of foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that respiratory care was provided consistent with professional standards of practice for 3 of 5 residents (Resident #3, Resident #66, and Resident #19) reviewed for respiratory care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 3's oxygen was administered as prescribed by the physician at 3 liters via nasal cannula and her nebulizer mask was stored properly. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #66's oxygen was administered as prescribed by the physician at 2 liters via nasal cannula. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #19's oxygen was placed on 3 liters per nasal cannula as ordered by the physician and her nebulizer mask was stored properly These failures could place residents requiring respiratory care at risk for shortness of breath, respiratory distress, or complications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #39 and resident #41) reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure contact precautions were started on Resident #39 after a wound culture collected on 03/04/2025 indicated methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (a type of bacteria that many antibiotics do not work on) was detected. 2. The facility failed to ensure CNA F wore PPE while entering Resident #41's room while on contact isolation precautions on 03/10/25. 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 2 of 21 residents (Resident #2 and Resident #76) reviewed for resident rights. The facility did not ensure Laundry Aide M knocked, prior to entering Resident #2's and Resident #76's room on 03/11/2025. This failure could place residents at risk for diminished quality of life, loss of dignity and loss of self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, 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 1 of 8 residents (Resident #37) reviewed for reasonable accommodations. The facility failed to ensure Resident #37's call button was within reach while Resident #37 was in a standard chair on 03/10/25. This failure could place residents at risk for a delay in assistance and decreased quality of life, self-worth, and dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #19) reviewed for a clean and homelike environment. The facility failed to ensure Resident #19, and her room was without urine odor. This failure could place residents at risk for diminished quality of life due to the lack of a well-kept and clean environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs identified in the comprehensive assessment for 2 of 21 residents (Resident #37 and Resident #39) reviewed for care plans. 1. The facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed specific to Resident #39's non-pressure wounds and included the wound care treatments she was receiving to her first and second toe on her right foot, right shin, and left posterior (back) ankle. 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents with limited range of motion received appropriate treatment and services to prevent further decrease in range of motion for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #63) reviewed for range of motion. The facility failed to ensure Resident #63's carrots (medical device used to treat hand contractures, permanent tightening of the muscles, tendons, skin, and surrounding tissues that causes stiffness, placed in the hands to help improve range of motion) were in place to his hands. This failure could place residents at risk for decrease in mobility and range of motion and contribute to worsening of contractures.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, 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 1 of 3 residents (Resident #40) reviewed for treatment and services related to indwelling catheters. The facility failed to ensure Resident #40's foley catheter drainage bag (bag holding urine that is drained from a tube inserted into the bladder) was kept off the floor. This failure could place residents at risk for urinary tract infections and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who were 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 21 residents' (Resident #'s 62) reviewed for trauma-informed care. The facility did not ensure Resident #62 had a trauma screening that identified possible triggers when Resident #62 had a history of trauma. These failures could put residents at an increased risk for severe psychological distress due to re-traumatization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure all drugs were only accessible by authorized personnel, for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #57) reviewed for medication storage. The facility did not ensure medication named Breo Ellipta (a combination inhaler used for maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma in adults) was not left unattended on Resident #57's bedside table on 03/10/25. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the therapeutic benefit of medications, harm or misuse of medication, drug diversions, and adverse reactions to medications due to improper storage.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to accommodate residents' food preferences for 1 of 21 residents (Resident #7) reviewed for preference. The facility failed to honor Resident #7's preference for no sausage. This failure could result in a decrease in resident choices, diminished interest in meals, and weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to immediately inform the resident, consult with the resident's physician and notify, consistent with his or her authority, the resident representative when there was a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status that was, a deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for notification of changes. 1. The facility failed to notify the physician of Resident #1's change in condition including head leaning heavily to the left, heavy incontinence, confusion, weakness, and need for 2-person assist on 7/15/24. 2. The facility failed to notify the physician of Resident #1's respiratory distress on 7/20/24 at 10:47 a.m. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan and the residents' choices for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care. 1. The facility failed to recognize Resident #1's head leaning heavily to the left, heavy incontinence, confusion, weakness, and need for 2-person assist on 07/15/24 as a change of condition. 2. The facility failed to ensure fluid intake was encouraged or increased for Resident #1 after receiving lab results on 7/18/24 which indicated Resident #1 was positive for a UTI. 3. The facility failed to follow-up for 2 days regarding Resident #1's lab results which were positive for UTI. 4. The facility failed to ensure RN A provided oxygen therapy to Resident #1 when she was in respiratory distress. [...]
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 food service safety. 1. The facility failed to ensure all food items were labeled and dated in the Freezer #1, Refrigerator #2, Refrigerator #3, Refrigerator #5, Freezer #6, Freezer #7, Freezer #8, Refrigerator #9 and the pantry. 2. The facility failed to ensure the sugar was stored in a bin with a closed lid. 3. The facility failed to ensure the range hood was free of greasy droplets. 4. The facility failed to ensure all kitchen staff wore a hairnet appropriately. These failures could place residents at risk of foodborne illness and food contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident received and the facility provided food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 4 of 21 residents (Residents #45, #5, #22 and #53) and 8 anonymous residents reviewed for palatable food. 1. The facility failed to ensure residents received food that tasted good. 2. The facility failed to ensure residents did not receive cold food. These failures could place residents at risk of weight loss, altered nutritional status and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to and the facility promoted and facilitated resident self-determination through support of resident choice for 1 of 21 residents (Resident #27) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to allow Resident #27 to go outside. This failure could place residents at risk for feelings of depression, lack self-determination and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was developed and implemented for each resident that included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that met professional standards of quality care for 2 of 16 residents (Residents #289 and #388) reviewed for baseline care plans. The facility failed to complete a baseline care plan for Resident #289 and Resident #388. 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 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 21 residents (Resident #64) reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to remove facial hair from Resident #64. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving services/care and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure, based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, residents who use psychotropic drugs received gradual dose reductions, and behavioral interventions, unless clinically contraindicated, in effort to discontinue these drugs and PRN orders for psychotropic drugs were limited to 14 days for 2 of 6 residents (Residents #45 and #67) reviewed for unnecessary psychotropic drugs. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #45 did not have a PRN order for Alprazolam 0.5 mg (a prescription medication used to treat anxiety disorders and panic disorder) after 14 days without an evaluation by the physician for continued treatment. 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident received and the facility provided food that accommodate resident allergies, intolerances and food preferences for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #41) reviewed for food preference. The facility failed to honor Resident #41's preference for carrots being served too often. This failure could place resident at risk of a decrease in resident choices, diminished interest in meals, and weight loss.
6 fire safety citations on file: 2 on May 21, 2026, 4 on February 14, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| July 30, 2024 | Fine | $14,433 |
| July 30, 2024 | Fine | $16,801 |
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) | 3.36 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.49 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.05 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.03 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.84 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 46.7% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 28.6% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.56 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 3.49 on weekdays and 3.05 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.7% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.35 in April to June 2025 to 3.36 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 | 3.36 | 0.49 | 3.49 | 3.05 | 0.7% | 0 of 90 | 77 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.25 | 0.37 | 3.41 | 2.86 | 0.9% | 0 of 92 | 82 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.25 | 0.36 | 3.40 | 2.86 | 1.5% | 0 of 92 | 83 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.35 | 0.31 | 3.54 | 2.87 | 0.4% | 0 of 91 | 79 |
| 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 | 19.2 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.6 | 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 | 14.7 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.7 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 27.4 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.2 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.5 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Mabank Nursing Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (52.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
52.1% 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. 71 eligible stays.
11.4% 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. 106 eligible stays.
9.4% 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. 76 eligible stays.
64.0% 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. 87 residents counted.
1.2% this home
Median of homes: Texas1.3% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 87 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. 34 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: STEPHENS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Priority Management, a group of 38 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stephens Memorial Hospital District | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 06/01/2022 |
| Bauder Family Investments, LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 10/01/2023 | |
| Boulware St. James LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 10/01/2023 | |
| Pmg Realco-Mabank, LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 10/01/2023 | |
| Bauder, Kelly | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Bauder, Madison | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Bauder, Parker | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Boulware, Douglas | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Boulware, Sandra | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Boulware, Steven | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Boulware, Thomas | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Walker, Katie | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Easley, James | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/02/2024 | |
| Pmg Opco - Mabank LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 10/01/2023 | |
| Bauder, Parker | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Bauder, William | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Boulware, Steven | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Cline, Amanda | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Bauder Family Investments, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2023 | |
| Boulware St. James LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2023 | |
| Bridgepointe Finanical Services, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2023 | |
| Innovative Nurse Consulting, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2023 | |
| Pmg Opco - Mabank LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2023 | |
| Pmg Realco-Mabank, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2023 | |
| Priority Management Group, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2023 | |
| Progressive Rehab Solutions, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2023 | |
| Bauder, Kelly | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Bauder, Madison | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Bauder, Parker | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Boulware, Douglas | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Boulware, Sandra | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Boulware, Steven | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Boulware, Thomas | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Cline, Amanda | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Sanner, David | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2023 | |
| Walker, Katie | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2023 |
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.