207 W Merritt St., Marshall, TX 75670 · Harrison County · (903) 938-3793
118 certified beds, about 51 residents a day · Government - Hospital district · Medicare and Medicaid since 1990
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 455879 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 4, 2026, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 31 health citations since September 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $13,995 in the last three years; the largest was $13,995, and the latest is dated October 22, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.56 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.33 of those hours.
32.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Caring Healthcare Group, an affiliated group of 14 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 31 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide the appropriate care and services to prevent urinary tract infections to the extent possible for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for indwelling catheters. (Resident #9) -Resident #9 had a urinalysis specimen obtained on 01/30/26 due to complaint of discomfort from lower abdomen to his penis and cloudy urine. The facility staff did not follow up on obtaining results and Resident #9 continued with signs of a possible UTI. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the required level of care and possible sepsis.
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 for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for sanitation in that: The facility failed to ensure the fryer was clean and free of debris. The facility failed to ensure baking sheets did not have brown and black colored buildup and debris of particles on the outside. The facility did not ensure skillets did not have brown and black colored buildup on the inside and outside. The facility failed to ensure a pack of cigarettes, and a fly swatter was not stored under the cutting boards touching the oven mittens. The facility failed to maintain cleanliness of the floor in the kitchen prep area. The facility failed to ensure dietary staff had all their hair in the hair restraints. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program so that facility was free of pests and rodents for 1 of 1 kitchen. The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to ensure the facility was free of roaches in the kitchen. This failure could place residents at risk for an unsanitary environment and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment for 1 of 10 residents (Resident #42) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to complete a comprehensive care plan for Resident #42's diet preferences on 12/19/2025 for Resident #42 when she was initially assessed by the Dietitian. This failure could place residents at risk of not having individual needs met, a decreased quality of life, and cause residents not to receive needed services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews the facility failed to provide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs, taking into consideration the preferences of each resident for 1 of 20 residents (Resident #42) reviewed for diet preferences. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 42's vegetarian dietary preferences were met. This failure could place residents at risk of their preferences not being considered.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service for 5 of 9 dietary staff reviewed for food handler's certificates. The facility failed to have current food handler's certificates for five kitchen staff until surveyor intervention on 02/02/2026. (Cook-A, Dietary Aide B, Dietary Aide C, Dietary Aide D, Dietary Aide E.) This failure could place residents at risk for food borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment in safe operating condition for 1 of 1 stove. The facility failed to ensure the rear 2nd, 3rd, and 5th burners ignited when the knobs were turned on. The rear 2nd, 3rd, and 5th would not ignite when the knobs were turned until the 3rd try on 02/02/2026 at 9:18 a.m. These failures could place the residents at risk of a fire and cross contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the right to formulate an advance directive was provided for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for resident rights. (Resident #51) The facility failed to ensure Resident #51, who was listed as DNR (Do Not Resuscitate), had a valid Out-of-Hospital Do Not Resuscitate (OOH-DNR) form that was not missing required information or the witness signature and date. This failure could place residents at risk of lifesaving procedures being performed against their wishes resulting in bruising, broken ribs, electrical shocking of the heart, having a tube placed in the throat and provided artificial breathing methods, and possibly being brought back to life in an unaware and unresponsive state.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure development and implementation of an effective discharge planning process that focused on the resident's discharge goals for 1 (Resident #15) of 10 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered discharge care plan with interventions for Resident #15. This failure could place residents at risk of not having individual needs met, a decreased quality of life, and cause residents not to receive needed services. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident to ensure the comprehensive care plan described the services and interventions to be used to attain and maintain the residents' practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 (Resident #45) of 10 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered PICC Line IV care plan with interventions for Resident #45. This failure could place residents at risk of not having individual needs met, a decreased quality of life, and cause residents not to receive needed services. Record review of Resident #45's Face Sheet, dated 02/03/26 indicated a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to administer parenteral fluids consistent with professional standards of practice and in accordance to physician orders for 1 of 1 (Resident #45) residents reviewed for parenteral (delivery of medications through injection)/IV (intravenous: administering fluids or medications directly into a vein) fluids. The facility failed to ensure Resident #45 had orders to flush the IV before and after medication administration. This failure could place residents receiving IV medications at risk for injury, infections, IV infiltration, clogging, and pain,.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure all drugs were stored in a locked compartment, only accessible by authorized personnel for 1 of 22 resident (Resident #37) reviewed for storage and labeling of medications. -Resident #37 had medications Nyquil cold & flu 12 oz bottle and Cloraseptic spray (Red) 6 oz bottle opened and used at the bedside. This failure could place residents at risk for misuse of medication, overdose, drug diversions, adverse reactions of medications, and not receiving the therapeutic benefit of medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible and provide supervision to prevent avoidable accidents for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for transfers. (Residents #1)The facility failed to keep Resident #1 free from injury after he was improperly transferred by CNA A on 10/19/25 causing extensive bruising to his chest and multiple rib fractures. This failure resulted in the identification of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 10/21/25 at 11:35 a.m. While the IJ was removed on 10/22/25 at 11:30 a.m., the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident to ensure the comprehensive care plan described the services and interventions to be used to attain and maintain the residents' practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 (Resident #2) of 10 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to implement a person-centered fall prevention care plan with interventions for Resident #2 to meet medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs. The facility failed to implement added interventions of providing a therapy evaluation, failed to drop the seat of his wheelchair, and failed to add non-skid material to wheelchair after fall resulting in fracture. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the menu was followed for the lunch meal on 11/04/24 and 11/05/24 for 2 of 2 meals (the lunch service) reviewed for nutritional adequacy. The facility did not serve fried chicken, as planned, with the lunch meal on 10/04/2024 nor informed residents that a substitute would be used. The facility failed to serve Salisbury steak with the lunch meal on 10/05/2024 nor informed residents that a substitute would be used. These failures could affect all residents in the facility by placing them at risk of not receiving adequate nutritive food value needed to promote/maintain health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation in that: 1. Chicken, contained in plastic, was being thawed on a stovetop with hot water. 2. Tater Tots, shredded lettuce, iceberg lettuce, cheese, and an unknown food item was not labeled or dated. 3. Kitchen stove was not kept free of carbon buildup, grease, and food particles. These deficient practices could place residents who received meals from the kitchen at risk for food borne illness.
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 promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #07) reviewed for resident rights in that: The facility failed to provide a catheter privacy bag for Residents #07 while sitting in main living room at facility with other residents on 11/5/2024. This failure could place residents at risk for diminished quality of life, loss of dignity and self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to meet each resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for care plans. (Resident #6 and Resident #29) The facility failed to ensure Resident #6's vision impairment and use of eyeglasses were care planned. The facility failed to ensure Resident #29's hearing impairment was care planned. These failures could place residents at risk of not having individual needs met, a decreased quality of life, and cause residents not to receive needed services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents received care, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent pressure ulcers based on the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 2 Residents (Resident #12) whose record were reviewed for skin integrity. The facility failed to ensure Resident #12 received and/or documented wound care on the evening shift of 10/19/24 and 10/20/24. This failure could place residents at risk for developing pressure ulcers and could contribute to developing avoidable pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident who was incontinent of bowel/bladder and each resident with an indwelling catheter received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections, for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #29) reviewed for indwelling urinary catheters (is a thin, hollow tube that is inserted into the bladder to drain urine). The facility failed to ensure Resident #29's foley catheter bag (is a device that drains urine (pee) from your urinary bladder into a collection bag outside of your body when you can't pee on your own) was changed as ordered on 10/15/24 (12am). [...]
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 safety. (Resident #47). The facility failed to inspect and remove expired foods from Resident #47's personal refrigerator on 11/4/2024. This failure could place resident at risk for food borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #12) reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #12 had signage to identify the resident was on EBP and PPE used for Enhance Barrier Precaution (EBP) due to pressure ulcer on her coccyx, on 11/04/24 and 11/05/24. 2. The facility failed to ensure WCN F followed the Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) (interventions to prevent spread of infection in high-risk residents) policy of wearing a gown during Resident #12's pressure ulcer wound care to her coccyx on 11/05/24. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for 2 of 8 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to ensure on 12/14/23, CNA B, did not verbally and physically abuse Resident #1 when she used foul language and hit Resident #1 on the head. The facility failed to ensure on 07/12/24, DA C, did not verbally abuse Resident #2 when he used foul language at him. These failures could place residents at risk for emotional distress and further abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents, for 2 of 8 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) and 2 of 5 staff members (CNA A and NCNA D) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to ensure CNA A, per the facility's policy, immediately reported witnessed physical and verbal abuse towards Resident #1 by CNA B on 12/14/23 to the ADM, DON, or ADON. The facility failed to ensure NCNA D, per the facility's policy, immediately reported witnessed verbal abuse towards Resident #2 by DA C on 07/12/24 to the ADM, DON, or ADON. Theses failures could place residents at risk for unsafe environment and further abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving mistreatment, neglect, abuse, or misappropriation of resident property were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the event that caused the allegation involved abuse to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Agency) for 2 of 8 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) and 2 of 5 staff members (CNA A and NCNA D) reviewed for reporting of abuse and mistreatment. The facility failed to ensure CNA A immediately reported witnessed physical and verbal abuse towards Resident #1 by CNA B on 12/14/23 to the ADM. The facility failed to ensure NCNA D immediately reported witnessed verbal abuse towards Resident #2 by DA C on 07/12/24 to the ADM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation in that: 1. Expired food was not thrown away. 2. Food was not labeled or dated. 3. The kitchen refrigerators and freezers had various food particles not cleaned off. These deficient practices could place residents who received meals from the main kitchen at risk for food borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene for 6 of 14 residents reviewed for ADLs (Residents #4, Resident #30, Resident #31, Resident #37, Resident 42, Resident #45). The facility did not clean or trim Resident #4, Resident #37, and Resident 42's fingernails. The facility failed to ensure Resident #45 did not have facial hair. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4, Resident #30, and Resident #31 received schedule shower/bed baths. These failures could place residents who required assistance from staff for ADLs at risk of not receiving care and services to meet their needs which could result in 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 ensure an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1of 2 residents reviewed for incontinent care and 10 of 23 residents observed during meal tray pass. (Resident #4, Resident #30, Resident #31, Resident #42, Resident #44, Resident #45, Resident #47, Resident #48, Resident #257, and Resident #258) The facility failed to ensure CNA D changed her gloves at appropriate times during incontinence care on Resident #4. The facility failed to ensure CNA D, MA E, and NA G performed hand hygiene after assisting residents with meal set up prior to assisting the next resident. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident was informed before, or at the time of admission, and periodically during the residents stay, of services available in the facility and of changes for those services, which included changes for services not covered under Medicare/Medicaid or by the facility's per diem rate for 2 of 3 residents (Residents #10 and #25) reviewed for Medicare/Medicaid coverage. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the status for 1 of 14 residents reviewed for assessments. (Resident #15) The facility failed to ensure to code Resident #15's use of an anti-anxiety on his MDS. This failure could place residents at risk of not having individual needs met.
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 1 of 2 residents reviewed for transfer. (Residents #4) The facility failed to ensure CNA A and CNA D performed a safe mechanical lift transfer (devices used to assist with transfers and movement of individuals who require support for mobility beyond the manual support provided by caregivers alone) for Resident #4. This failure could place residents at risk of injury from accident and hazards.
8 fire safety citations on file: 4 on February 4, 2026, 3 on November 6, 2024, 1 on September 27, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 22, 2025 | Fine | $13,995 |
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) | 4.56 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.33 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.51 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.93 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.30 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 32.8% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.99 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 4.99 on weekdays and 3.51 on weekends, 30% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.2% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.65 in April to June 2025 to 4.56 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 | 4.56 | 0.33 | 4.99 | 3.51 | 0.2% | 0 of 90 | 51 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.86 | 0.34 | 5.28 | 3.80 | 0.1% | 0 of 92 | 49 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 5.12 | 0.27 | 5.59 | 3.95 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 46 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.65 | 0.22 | 5.04 | 3.66 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 50 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Texas, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.33 | 0.40 | 3.50 | 2.93 | 2.2% | 0.7% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texas, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.03 | $16.97 to $20.71 | 88,680 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.92 | $27.46 to $32.89 | 57,560 |
| Registered nurses | $46.14 | $38.06 to $50.53 | 271,380 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Texas | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.3 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 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 | 3.9 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.6 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 14.0 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 16.6 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Marshall Manor West's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (38.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
38.8% 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. 36 eligible stays.
11.3% 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. 56 eligible stays.
8.2% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Texas: 4 better, 11 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 30 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. 17 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. 25 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 25 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. 5 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: WINNIE-STOWELL HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Caring Healthcare Group, a group of 14 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kale, Kenneth | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 04/22/2019 | |
| Murrell, Edward | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/30/2012 | |
| Winnie-Stowell Hospital District | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 07/22/2014 | |
| Shapiro, Menachem | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/22/2014 |
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.