2600 Parkview Ln, Bedford, TX 76022 · Tarrant County · (817) 354-6556
107 certified beds, about 67 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1996
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675565 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 20, 2026, inspectors cited 5 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
None of its 20 health citations since November 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 4.81 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.78 of those hours.
42.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Life Care Services, an affiliated group of 43 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 20 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and recorded reviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents received the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable mental and psychosocial well-being consistent with the resident comprehensive assessment and plan of care for one resident (Resident#1) of 10 residents reviewed for quality of life. The facility failed to ensure Resident#1 received prompt assistance needed to maintain comfort ,dignity, and safety. This failure could put the residents at risk for unmet needs, falls, Incontinence, skin breakdown, and emotional distress.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained free of accident hazards as possible for 1 (200 hall) out of 3 hallways reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure that the mechanical lift on 200 hall was locked and secured when not in use. This failure could place residents at risk of falls and/or injuries. Findings Included: Observation on 07/13/26 at 10:17 am of the 200 hall revealed an unlocked and unsecured mechanical lift parked where residents were observed wheeling themselves up and down the hallway. During an interview on 07/13/26 at 10:25 am with CNA B revealed that mechanical lifts should always be locked and stored away from high traffic areas where residents could access them and get hurt. She stated she had been in-serviced on mechanical lifts to include storage. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to have evidence that all allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, were thoroughly investigated for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility did not thoroughly investigate an incident in which Resident #4 made a grievance that a staff member pinched her. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse/neglect and could lead to a diminished quality of life and psychosocial harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living receives the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 2 of 6 residents (Residents #23 and #63) reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to answer Resident #23 and Resident #63 call lights in a timely manner. This failure could place residents at risk for complications associated with delayed care such as skin breakdown and dignity issues.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident that are complete; accurately documented; readily accessible; and systematically organized for 2 of 6 residents (Residents #25 and Resident #7) completed and accurate records. The facility failed to ensure Resident #7 and Resident # 25 had either a Full Code or a Do Not Resuscitate status listed in the electronic medical record making it unclear as to what the code status was. This failure placed residents at risk of not having their preferences and wishes honored in an emergency.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident was offered a therapeutic diet when there was a nutritional problem and the health care provider ordered a therapeutic diet for one (Resident #65) of three residents reviewed for therapeutic diets. The facility failed to ensure Resident #65 was offered alternative menu items for a therapeutic diet when she did not like the meal and received ordered Boost (supplement shake) instead of Glucerna (supplement shake for diabetes). This failure placed residents at risk of weight loss, receiving the wrong supplement, and not having choices of alternate menu items.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews 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 one (Resident #104) of five residents, reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure LVN K performed hand hygiene and changed his gloves after treating one wound and moving on to another wound on Resident #104. This failure placed residents at risk for healthcare associated cross contamination and infections.
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 three (October 2025, November 2025 and December 2025 of four meetings reviewed for QAPI.1. The facility did not ensure the Infection Preventionist attended the December 2025 meeting.2. The facility did not ensure meeting occurred monthly as per their policy and did not conduct meetings for January 2026 and February 2026. These failures could place residents at risk for quality deficiencies being unidentified, infections, no appropriate plans of action developed and implemented, and no appropriate guidance developed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for clinical records (Resident #30). The facility failed to ensure Resident #30's use of bed rails/grab bars was documented in their care plan. The facility's failure placed residents requiring care at risk of not having their individual needs met, not receiving necessary care and services, and a failure to ensure continuity of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #43) reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to safely transfer Resident #43 during a mechanical lift from the bed to the wheelchair. The facility failed to provide safe mechanical transfer by not ultilizing 2 staff members to perform the transfer. This failure could place residents at risk of accidents, injuries, and hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to assess the risks and benefits of bed rails and grab bars with the resident or resident representative or obtain informed consent prior to installation for two (Resident #29 and Resident #54) of 4 resident rooms observed and reviewed for bed rails/enabler bars. The facility failed to have evidence of informed consent and assessment of the resident for risk of entrapment for bed rails or grab bars for Resident #29 and failed to have evidence of informed consent for bed rails or grab bars for Resident #54. This failure could affect residents who used bed rails/grab bars at risk of the resident not being assessed for bed rails or grab bars, resident/responsible party not being aware of the risks, and informed consent not being obtained from the resident or responsible party.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, 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 1 of 2 medication rooms (Med Room A) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure Med Room A did not have expired insulin. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving expired medication and not having appropriate therapeutic effects.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure, in accordance with State and Federal laws, all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments under proper temperature controls and permitted only authorized personnel to have access to the medication cart for 1 of 7 medication carts (Med Cart C) and 2 of 2 medication rooms (Med Room A and Med Room B) reviewed for storage of medication. 1. The facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled. Med Room B had unlabeled and undated TB vaccine and food was stored next to medications in the fridge. 2. The facility failed to ensure Med Cart C was kept locked or under direct observation of authorized staff in an area where residents and family could access it outside Resident #209's room. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection and prevention control program, designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, and help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infection, for two residents (Resident #2 and Resident #7) of eight residents reviewed for infection control practices. CMA F failed to perform hand hygiene between residents while alternately feeding Resident #2 and Resident #7. This failure had the potential to result in the spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments and permit only authorized personnel to have access for 2 of 4 (Medication Cart #1 and Medication Cart #2) medication carts reviewed for pharmacy services. Medication cart #1 was observed unlocked and unattended with 6 blister packs medication cards left on top unsupervised by MA P for 4 minutes. Medication cart #2 was observed outside resident room facing hallway where individuals passed, unlocked and unattended for 2 minutes by RN N. This failure could place residents at risk of having access to unauthorized medications and/or lead to possible harm or drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents who needed respiratory care were provided with such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 2 (Resident # 82 and Resident #83) of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care, in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #82 oxygen tubing and nasal cannula were kept off the floor and bagged when not in use. The facility failed to ensure Resident #83's oxygen tubing was being changed weekly as ordered based on the EMAR and interview with the resident. These failures could place residents that receive oxygen therapy at risk for inadequate care and respiratory infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public for 1 (Resident #82) of 3 residents reviewed for safe , clean, sanitary, and comfortable environment. The facility failed to ensure Resident #82's rooms were free of smeared oatmeal, hard colorful candies, blanket on the floor obstructing walk path for resident #83 with a history of falls. This failure could place residents at risk falls, injuries, and unsanitary care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to transmit MDS data for 3(Resident #64, 41, 26) of 5 residents reviewed for MDS transmission. The facility failed to transmit a Discharge MDS for Residents # 64, 41, and 26. This failure could place residents at risk of facility not providing complete and specific information for payment and quality of measure purposes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 6 (Resident #70, Resident #6, Resident # 7, Resident #10, Resident #43, and Resident #55) of 15 residents reviewed for comprehensive person-centered care plans. 1. The facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan based on assessed needs to address the use of antidepressant, diuretic, and antibiotic medications for Resident #70. 2. The facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan based on assessed needs to address the special diet and fluid restriction due to heart failure for Resident #6. 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to properly store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed. The facility failed to ensure foods were sealed and/or labeled properly in refrigerators. The facility failed to ensure refrigerated foods were held at or below 41 degrees. These failures could place residents that eat out of the kitchen at risk for food borne illnesses.
18 fire safety citations on file: 5 on March 20, 2026, 4 on December 12, 2024, 9 on November 8, 2023.
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) | 4.81 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.78 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 4.15 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.77 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.25 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 42.6% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 16.7% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.97 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 5.07 on weekdays and 4.15 on weekends, 18% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.59 in April to June 2025 to 4.81 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 | 4.81 | 0.78 | 5.07 | 4.15 | 0.6% | 0 of 90 | 67 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.23 | 0.47 | 3.36 | 2.91 | 9.7% | 0 of 92 | 103 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.42 | 0.29 | 2.51 | 2.19 | 5.5% | 0 of 92 | 119 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.59 | 0.62 | 4.81 | 4.04 | 2.9% | 0 of 91 | 61 |
| 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 | 27.3 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.6 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.5 | 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 with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.0 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.4 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 12.5 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.6 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Parkwood Village's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (64.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
64.7% this home
Better than 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. 126 eligible stays.
12.9% 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. 150 eligible stays.
6.0% 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. 77 eligible stays.
27.6% 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. 58 residents counted.
1.4% 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. 70 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. 68 residents counted.
97.8% 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. 45 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: LCS-PHC LLC. CMS links this home to Life Care Services, a group of 43 nursing homes averaging 4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mustang SNF Holdings LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 09/02/2025 |
| Javelin Group Funding I, LP | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 5% | 09/02/2025 |
| Lmof V Mustang Aiv LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 95% | 09/02/2025 |
| Eden, Kevin | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 09/02/2025 | |
| Naul, Alan | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 09/02/2025 | |
| Eden, Kevin | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/02/2025 | |
| Village Senior Care LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/02/2025 | |
| Eden, Kevin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/02/2025 | |
| Naul, Alan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/02/2025 | |
| Roget, Alan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/02/2025 | |
| Javelin Group Funding I, LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/02/2025 | |
| Lmof V Mustang Aiv LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/02/2025 | |
| Mustang SNF Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/02/2025 | |
| Parkwood Care Propco LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/02/2025 | |
| Roget, Alan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/02/2025 |
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.