1301 Mesa Dr, Plainview, TX 79072 · Hale County · (806) 293-4855
121 certified beds, about 82 residents a day · Government - Hospital district · Medicare and Medicaid since 1995
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675478 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 26, 2026, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
None of its 22 health citations since September 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 2.97 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.33 of those hours.
26.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Advanced Healthcare Solutions, an affiliated group of 28 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 22 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures. for 2 of 7 residents (Residents #1 and #2) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to report an incident of abuse dated 04/08/2026 between Resident #1 and Resident #2 to the state agency. This could place residents at risk of continued and/or unrecognized abuse, neglect, or exploitation. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with the professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation. The facility failed to ensure refrigerated, freezer, and pantry items were properly stored, labeled, and dated. These failures could place residents at risk of food-borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment for 1 of 1 facility observed for environment. Failures included a sticky floor in the resident lounge and peeling texture on the ceiling in the main dining room. On the secure unit, there were tables and chairs in need of repair and cleaning as well as dirty ceiling fans and light fixtures and a broken light fixture. These failures could affect residents by placing them in an uncomfortable and unsanitary environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights and that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 3 (Resident #10, Resident #27, and Resident #62) of 20 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans.1. The facility failed to include Resident #10's bedrails in her care plan.2. The facility failed to include Resident #27's bedrails in her care plan. Resident #27's care plan noted she was receiving anticoagulant medication when she was not receiving anticoagulant (blood thinning) medication.3. The facility failed to include Resident #62's bedrails in her care plan. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who need respiratory care were provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice for 5 (Resident #2, 4, 18, 30, and 83) of 7 residents reviewed for respiratory care. -The facility failed to store the nasal cannulas for Resident #2, 4, 18, and 83 properly. -The facility failed to provide oxygen for Resident #30. These failure could affect residents by placing them at risk for respiratory compromise and associated complications such as shortness of breath, confusion, respiratory failure, infection, and exacerbation of their condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure correct installation, use, and maintenance of bedrails for 3 (Resident #27, Resident #29, and Resident #33) of 20 residents reviewed for bedrails.1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #27's bedrails were not loose.2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #29's bedrails were not loose.3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #33's bedrails were not loose. These failures could place residents at risk of injury. Findings Included:1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to have sufficient nursing staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical well-being for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for infection control procedures. -staff were unable to implement and maintain appropriate infection control precautions properly when providing resident care. These deficient practices have the potential to affect all residents in the facility by exposing them to care that could lead to infection, tissue breakdown, communicable diseases, and feelings of isolation related to poor hygiene.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the menu was followed, for 5 out of 5 residents that received pureed food (Residents #8, # 21, #65, #69, and #85), in that: The facility failed to ensure Residents #8, # 21, #65, #69, and #85 received pureed lemon dessert on 02/24/2026. The facility failed to ensure Residents #8, # 21, #65, #69, #85received pureed bread on 02/25/2026. These failures could place residents at risk for unwanted weight loss, hunger, unwanted weight gain, and metabolic imbalances.
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 1 (LVN C) of 6 staff observed for infection control and 2 (Resident #8 and #29) of 7 residents observed for infection control. -LVN C did not follow the correct standard precaution procedures. -LVN C did not perform the correct infection control protocols when administering an IV to Resident #29. -CNA L and CNA M did not follow EBP precautions when performing catheter care for Resident #8. This deficient practice has the potential to affect residents by exposing them to care that could lead to the spread of infections, tissue breakdown, and feelings of isolation related to poor hygiene. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 (Resident #27) of 20 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessment. The facility coded Resident #27 as receiving anticoagulant medication when she did not receive anticoagulant medication. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving unnecessary care/medication. Findings Included:Record review of Resident #27's admission record dated 02/24/26 revealed a [AGE] year-old female most recently admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, cerebral infarction (stroke), hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting left non-dominant side (partial paralysis following a stroke), and seizures (uncontrolled electrical disturbance in the brain). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that includes the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality care within 48 hours of a resident's admission for 1 (Resident #29) of 20 residents reviewed for care planning. The facility failed to include bedrails in Resident #29's baseline care plan. This failure could place newly admitted residents at risk of not receiving safe, effective, person-centered care. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure parenteral fluids were administered consistent with professional standards of practice and in accordance with physician's orders, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences for 1 (Resident #29) of 20 residents reviewed for parenteral fluids. Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a PICC line without orders for dressing change, flushing, or monitoring for infection of the PICC line until 02/24/26. This failure could place residents at risk of harm due to infection. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents who are trauma survivors received 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 for 1 (Resident #6) of two residents reviewed in that:The facility failed to identify Resident #6's past trauma, potential triggers and incorporate trauma informed interventions into the resident's care plan. This failure could place residents at increased risk for psychological distress due to re-traumatization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had a right to ade a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, which included but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safety for 1 of 1 resident refrigerators reviewed for resident environment . 1. The facility failed to ensure expired and rotten food was removed from residents refrigerator, located by the main nurses station. 2. The facility failed to ensure residents personal refrigerators maintained sanitary conditions. 3. The facility failed to ensure foods in residents personal refrigerators were labeled and dated. These failures could place residents at risk of contracting foodborne illness and not having their personal food items stored in a sanitary manner. Findings Included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment, that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for 1 of 20 residents (Resident #45) reviewed for dignity issues. The facility failed to ensure Resident #45's catheter drainage bag was covered and urine in the bag was not visually exposed . This failure could place residents at risk of feeling uncomfortable and disrespected and could decrease residents' self-esteem and/or quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment and described the services that were to be furnished to attain or maintained the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 2 of 20 residents (Residents #69 and #12) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 69's comprehensive care plan addressed the resident's need for a scoop mattress. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #12's comprehensive care plan addressed the resident's need for a fall mat. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice for 2 (Resident #66 and Resident #68) of 5 residents reviewed for respiratory care. 1. The facility failed to obtain orders for Resident #66's oxygen therapy. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #68's order for oxygen included the rate (lpm) at which she was to receive oxygen. These failures could affect all residents on oxygen therapy by placing them at risk for respiratory compromise and associated complications such as shortness of breath, confusion, respiratory failure, and exacerbation of their condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with the professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation. The facility failed to ensure items in the freezer, pantry and refrigerator were properly stored, labeled, and dated. The facility failed to ensure items that were expired were disposed of and out of circulation. These failures could place residents at risk of food-borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident was treated with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for 7 of 10 anonymous residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to promptly resolve grievances that were addressed in resident council meetings . This failure could place residents at risk of weight loss, as well as experiencing feelings of anger, frustration, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review; the facility failed to ensure medications were stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 1 (the medication room) of 3 medication areas reviewed for medication storage. The facility stored 11 medications in the medication room refrigerator that was documented at or below freezing 6 times between 9-13-2023 and 9-22-2023. The facility's failure to ensure medications were stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles could result in a resident receiving a medication that would be ineffective for their treatment resulting in exacerbation of the resident's condition and disease processes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents have the right to personal privacy and confidentiality of his or her personal and medical records for 3 (Resident #10, #64, and #67) of 9 residents reviewed for medication administration. Resident #10's personal and medical information was left exposed on the computer screen on top of the North Hall Medication cart in the resident hallway unattended while LVN A administered Resident #10's medications. Resident #64's personal and medical information was left exposed on the computer screen on top of the North Hall Medication cart in the resident hallway unattended while LVN A administered Resident #64's medications. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive assessment after a significant change was completed within 14 days after the facility determined or should have determined there had been a significant change in the resident's physical or mental condition for 1 of 18 (Resident #41) residents reviewed for comprehensive assessments. The facility failed to complete a MDS assessment on Resident #41 within 14 days after the resident was admitted into hospice, which triggered a significant change of condition. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving quality care for a significant condition, quality of life, and access to services or care appropriate for the change of condition. Findings Include: [...]
13 fire safety citations on file: 10 on February 26, 2026, 1 on November 14, 2024, 2 on September 21, 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) | 2.97 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.33 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.63 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.63 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.01 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 26.7% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 40.0% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.55 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 3.11 on weekdays and 2.63 on weekends, 15% 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 2.78 in April to June 2025 to 2.97 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 | 2.97 | 0.33 | 3.11 | 2.63 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 82 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.99 | 0.34 | 3.15 | 2.59 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 84 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.04 | 0.35 | 3.18 | 2.69 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 88 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 2.78 | 0.30 | 2.95 | 2.37 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 89 |
| 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 | 10.3 | 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 | 1.9 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.8 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.2 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 26.2 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.7 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Prairie House Living Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (46.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
46.3% 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. 30 eligible stays.
9.8% 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. 47 eligible stays.
8.5% 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. 25 eligible stays.
57.5% 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. 40 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. 62 residents counted.
1.8% 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. 62 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: CHILDRESS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Advanced Healthcare Solutions, a group of 28 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holcomb, Holly | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 04/15/1996 | |
| Stratton, Emilee | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 05/07/2014 | |
| Holcomb, Holly | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/29/2021 | |
| Stratton, Emilee | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/18/2018 | |
| Advanced Hcs LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 07/01/2021 | |
| Childress County Hospital District | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2014 | |
| Lichtschein, Teddy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2021 | |
| Scheiner, Eliezer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2021 | |
| Shelby, Jack | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2021 |
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.