1026 E Goode St., Quitman, TX 75783 · Wood County · (903) 763-2284
156 certified beds, about 49 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1995
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675553 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 6, 2026, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 28 health citations since November 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $39,049 in the last three years; the largest was $24,187, and the latest is dated October 2, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.40 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.36 of those hours.
81.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Opco Skilled Management, an affiliated group of 68 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 28 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a Baseline Care Plan within forty-eight hours of admission that included the instructions for resident care needed to provide effective and person-centered care for 5 of 12 residents reviewed for new admissions. (Resident #15, Resident #64, Resident #47, Resident # 67 and Resident #69). 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #15, Resident #64, Resident #47, Resident #67, and Resident #69's baseline care plan was completed within 48 hours of admission to the facility. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #67's baseline care plan was signed off or reviewed by an RN. 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 treat each resident with respect and dignity and provided care in a manner that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 1 of 19 residents (Resident #47) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #47's catheter drainage bag was in a privacy bag. This failure could place residents at an increased risk of embarrassment and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents have the right to be informed in advance, by the physician or other practitioner or professional, of the risks and benefits of proposed care, of treatment and treatment alternatives and to choose the option he or she prefers for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for the right to be informed. (Resident #47) The facility failed to ensure Resident #47 or her representative provided informed consent prior to taking fluoxetine (an antidepressant medication). These failures could place residents at risk for treatment or services provided without their informed consent.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 1 of 19 residents reviewed for environment. (Resident #3) 1. The facility failed to replace missing pieces from Resident #3's window blinds. This failure could place residents at risk of an uncomfortable environment and a decrease in quality of life and self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure an accurate MDS assessment was completed for 2 of 19 residents (Resident's #11 and #47) reviewed for MDS accuracy. 1. The facility did not ensure Resident #11's admission MDS assessment was accurately coded to reflect her tobacco use. 2. The facility did not ensure Resident #47's admission MDS assessment was accurately coded to reflect her indwelling catheter. These failures 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 provide the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene for 1 of 24 residents reviewed for ADLs (Residents #54.)The facility failed to provide Resident #54 with a shower the week of 4/27/26-5/03/26. This failure could place residents 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 each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 19 (Resident #14) reviewed for adequate supervision and assistive device to prevent accidents. The facility failed to ensure Resident #14 did not use Mentholatum ointment (topical rub to relieve minor aches, pains and cold symptoms) while nasal canula delivering oxygen was in place. These failures could place residents at an increased risk for injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments for 1 of 19 (Resident #14) reviewed for medications in room. 1 of 3 medication carts reviewed (Nurse medication cart for the Front Halls) 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #14 did not have over the counter medication Mentholatum ointment (topical rub to relieve minor aches, pains and cold symptoms) in room on 5/4/26, 5/5/26 and 5/6/26. The facility failed to ensure LVN B secured and locked the nurse medication cart for Front Halls. 2. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their medications available as prescribed or possible drug diversions.
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 in the facility's only kitchen reviewed for food safety requirements. 1. The facility failed to ensure foods stored in the kitchen walk-in refrigerator were thrown away when expired. 2. The facility failed to ensure foods stored in the kitchen walk-in freezer were thrown away when expired. 3. The facility failed to ensure a mixing bowl with a pink and white substance was labeled and dated. 4. The facility failed to properly store raw meat in the kitchen walk-in refrigerator. These failures could place residents at risk of foodborne illness and food contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timetables to meet residents highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial needs for 1 of 17 residents reviewed for care plans, (Resident #4). Resident #4 was not have a care planned for her DNR (a medical order instructing healthcare providers not to perform CPR or other resuscitative measures if a patient's heart or breathing stops). Her care plan indicated she was a full code. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the care required to meet their physical, mental, and psychosocial needs for each to attain or maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial outcome.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was properly secured in his wheelchair during transport, in which Resident #1 fell forward onto his hands and knees when CNA A hit the brakes on 08/20/2024. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance IJ. The noncompliance began on 08/20/2024 and ended on 08/21/2024. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could place residents at risk for injury/death from a vehicle accident and decreased quality of life. Findings Include: [...]
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 (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was adequately supervised after she had a change in mental status and told staff she was leaving the facility, which resulted in her leaving the facility in her wheelchair and going two buildings down the street (on the same side of the road approximately 800 feet) away from the facility on 03/17/2024 without the facility staff's knowledge. An IJ was identified on 04/01/2024. The IJ began on 03/17/2024 and removed on 03/17/2024. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to have physician orders for the resident's immediate care for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for admission physician orders. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 had a physician order to wear her knee brace and to not bear weight on her right knee. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving appropriate care, treatment, and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to be informed of, and participate in, his or her treatment which included, the right to be informed in advance, by the physician or other practitioner or other professional, of the risks and benefits of proposed care, treatment and treatment alternatives or treatment options to choose the alternative or option he or she preferred for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #58) reviewed for psychoactive medications. The facility failed to obtain an informed consent based on the information of the benefits and risks for Resident #58 prior to administering Seroquel, an antipsychotic, used to treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for the front lobby, and 1 of 4 halls ( hall 800) reviewed for a clean and homelike environment. The facility failed to ensure the lobby and hall 800 were without odors. This failure could place residents at risk of infections and living in an uncomfortable environment leading to a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review the facility failed to develop the baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #85) reviewed for baseline care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #85 had a baseline care plan completed within 48 hours of admission that included the use of a sling for the diagnosis of displaced fracture of shaft of left clavicle (shoulder). This failure could affect residents by not addressing their physical, mental, and psychosocial needs for each resident to attain or maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial outcome.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs for 2 of 15 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans (Resident #31 and Resident #24). 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #31's care plan accurately reflected the use of a sling. 1a. The facility failed to have a physician order for Resident #31's sling to her right arm. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #24's care plan reflected she had PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder that develops in some people who have experienced a shocking, scary, or dangerous event) and her triggers. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible and each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 of 4 halls (Hall 800) and 1 of 3 shower rooms (Hall 800) reviewed for accidents and supervision. 1. The facility failed to ensure water was at a safe temperature for hall 800. 2. The facility failed to ensure Hall 800 shower room was securely closed and free from hazardous liquid. These failures could place residents at risk of falls, entrapment, burns, or injury. Findings Include: During an observation on 02/05/24 at 10:16 a.m., revealed room [ROOM NUMBER] on hall 800 water in the bathroom sink felt hot to the surveyor's hand. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents requiring respiratory care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 4 (Resident #25) who were reviewed for respiratory care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #25 had an oxygen sign placed on her door. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #25's nasal cannula tubing was dated and, in a bag, when not used. These failures could place residents who receive respiratory care at risk of developing respiratory complications and a decreased quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents who were 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 of the resident for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #24) reviewed for trauma-informed care. The facility did not ensure Resident #24's trauma screening was completed upon admission to the facility. This failure could put residents at an increased risk for severe psychological distress due to re-traumatization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature controls for 1 of 15 residents reviewed in sample (Resident #21). The facility failed to ensure Resident #21's Ziploc bag with 2 Vitamin D(cholecalciferol) 1000units(25mcg) tablets and 1 bottle of benzocaine topical anesthetic spray 20% were stored and locked in an area not accessible to other staff, residents, or visitors. This failure could place residents at risk of injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview 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 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 1 of 3 residents (Resident #20) reviewed for hospice services. The facility did not ensure Resident #20's hospice records were a part of their records in the facility. This could place residents who receive hospice services at-risk of receiving inadequate end-of-life care due to a lack of documentation, coordination of care and communication of resident needs.
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 of 3 residents (Resident #12) reviewed for infection control practices. The facility failed to ensure LVN G performed hand hygiene between glove changes while providing wound care to Resident #12. This failure could place residents and staff at risk for cross contamination and the spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow their own established smoking policy for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #13 and Resident #85) reviewed for smoking. 1. The facility failed to follow the policy on smoking by not completing a smoking screen assessment quarterly on Resident #13. 2. The facility failed to follow the policy on smoking by not completing a smoking screen on admission for Resident #85 These failures could place residents at risk of unsafe smoking and injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop, implement, and maintain annually an effective training program for existing staff, consistent with their expected roles for 3 of 22 employees (Dietician, Housekeeping Supervisor, and Activity Director) reviewed for required annual trainings. The facility failed to ensure the Dietician and Housekeeping Supervisor received required restraint and the Activity Director received HIV training annually. This failure could place residents at risk for inappropriate restraints and exposure to HIV.
Inspectors wroteBased on 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 1 of 5 residents reviewed for care plans. (Resident #1) The facility failed to implement the comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #1 by not having a fall mat beside the bed when the resident fell. 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 interview and record review the facility failed to in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, maintain medical records on each resident that was accurately documented for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accuracy of medical records. The facility failed to ensure LVN A did not falsify Neurological Assessments for Resident #1. This failure could place residents at risk for inaccurate assessments and monitoring.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review the facility failed to provide specialized rehabilitative services for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for specialized rehabilitative services. (Resident #1) The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received speech therapy per the PASRR Comprehensive Service Plan January 2023 to March of 2023. This failure could place residents who require specialized rehabilitative services at risk of decline in health status and a decreased quality of life.
13 fire safety citations on file: 3 on May 6, 2026, 4 on March 19, 2025, 6 on February 7, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 2, 2024 | Fine | $14,862 |
| April 1, 2024 | Fine | $24,187 |
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) | 3.40 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.36 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.10 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.74 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.29 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 81.1% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.86 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 3.52 on weekdays and 3.10 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 29.3% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.08 in April to June 2025 to 3.40 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 | 3.40 | 0.36 | 3.52 | 3.10 | 29.3% | 0 of 90 | 49 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.06 | 0.24 | 3.27 | 2.53 | 27.2% | 1 of 92 | 39 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.24 | 0.25 | 3.41 | 2.83 | 31.9% | 1 of 92 | 37 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.08 | 0.25 | 3.25 | 2.66 | 27.5% | 0 of 91 | 37 |
| 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 | 7.8 | 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 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.0 | 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 | 11.4 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.2 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.9 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 5.6 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Quitman Wellness & Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (50.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
50.5% 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. 69 eligible stays.
10.5% 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. 79 eligible stays.
7.3% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Texas: 4 better, 11 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 32 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. 33 residents counted.
2.9% 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. 33 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. 6 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: STRATFORD HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Opco Skilled Management, a group of 68 nursing homes averaging 2.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stratford Hospital District | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 08/01/2021 |
| Chumley, Richard | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/01/2021 | |
| Quitman Wellness & Rehabilitation LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 11/01/2025 | |
| Garetz, David | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/01/2025 | |
| Davidovich, Niv | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 02/06/2026 | |
| Hagins, Elizabeth | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 02/06/2026 | |
| Kaplan, Esther | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 02/06/2026 | |
| Mindle, Adam | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 02/06/2026 | |
| Sternshein, Jennifer | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 02/06/2026 | |
| 1026 E Goode Street Tx LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/01/2025 | |
| Esdov Investments LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/01/2025 | |
| First Sweetzer Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/01/2025 | |
| Linz Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/01/2025 | |
| Pimento Property Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/01/2025 | |
| Red Stone Advisors LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/01/2025 | |
| Rojo Re Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/01/2025 | |
| Lambie, Jacob | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/29/2023 |
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.