1110 Westview Dr, Seymour, TX 76380 · Baylor County · (940) 889-3176
90 certified beds, about 39 residents a day · Government - Hospital district · Medicare and Medicaid since 1992
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675042 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 8, 2025, inspectors cited 2 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
None of its 20 health citations since January 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 3.27 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.45 of those hours.
67.9% 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 20 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident that were complete and accurately documented for 2 (Resident #1, and #3) of 5 residents reviewed for medical records. The facility failed to ensure Residents #1 and #3 had accurate daily BS assessments and insulin injection documented in the medical record. These failures could place residents at risk due to inaccurate assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #6), reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility failed to provide timely incontinence care for Resident #6. These failures could place residents who were dependent on staff for ADL care at risk for loss of dignity, risk for infections, skin breakdown, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to self-administer medications if the interdisciplinary team determined that this practice was clinically appropriate for 1 of 5 resident (Resident #12) reviewed for medication self-administration. The facility did not assess Resident #12 for self-administration safety. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving medication as ordered and ingesting an incorrect amount of medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in one of one kitchen reviewed for food and nutrition services. The facility failed to ensure the stainless-steel shelf units were not soiled with food particles and dried liquid. This failure could place residents at risk for foodborne illness and a decline in health status.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to review the work of each Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) at least once every 12 months, for 3 (CNA A, CNA B and CNA C) of 6 CNAs reviewed for annual competency evaluations. This deficient practice could affect residents and place them at risk of not receiving consistent, appropriate interventions necessary to meet the residents' needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement care plans for necessary treatments and conditions for one of two residents (Resident #13) reviewed for Comprehensive Care Plans. The facility failed to develop Resident #13's care plan dated 12/04/2023 that addressed Resident 13's diagnosis of altered mental status and psychotic medication as ordered. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving care that was thoughtful, planned, and relevant to their condition(s) which could lead to complications in resident health and quality of life and care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals, and preferences for 1 of 2 Residents (Resident #20) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #20's nasal cannula and nebulizer were kept in a bag while not in use . These failures could place residents at risk for infections and transmission of communicable diseases.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation and record review the facility failed to, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, maintain medical records on each resident that were complete and accurately documented for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #22) reviewed for accuracy of medical records. The facility failed to ensure Resident #22 medical record was complete and included physician orders for oxygen. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving inadequate care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of infections. This affected 1 (Resident #27) of 1 resident observed for incontinent care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #27 was provided incontinent care by staff who demonstrated correct infection control procedures on 2/29/2024. This failure could place residents at risk of the spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to provide both a Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (Form CMS-10055) and a Notice of Medicare Non-coverage (Form CMS-10123 general notice) for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #6 and Resident #7) reviewed for Medicare Beneficiary Protection Notification when discharged from Medicare Part A Services with benefit days remaining. The facility failed to ensure Resident #6, and Resident #7 were given a Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (Form CMS-10055) in addition to the Notice of Medicare Non-coverage (Form CMS-10123 general notice) when they were discharged from skilled services. These failures could place residents at risk of not being fully informed about services covered by Medicare.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the required minimum of 80 square feet of room space per resident in 1 of 40 double occupancy resident rooms by failing to provide a minimum of 160 square feet in resident room # 13. This deficient practice could place residents who may occupy double occupancy resident rooms at risk of not having the personal living space to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident's drug regimen was free of unnecessary drugs for 1 of 1 residents (Resident # 1) whose medications were reviewed for unnecessary meds. Resident #1 (a male) received a female hormone replacement drug (Provera) for a diagnosis of inappropriate sexual behavior without documented clinical rationale for the benefit or adequate monitoring of behaviors. This failure could place residents at risk of undesirable side effects and cause a physical or psychosocial decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment in safe operating condition for 3 (Resident #22,#24 and #30) who require glucometer checks for abnormal blood sugar on back hall (Zone 5). The glucometer used for checking resident blood sugars was not calibrated on 01/04/2023 and 01/05/2023 as recorded in the glucometer logbook. This failure could put residents at risk of inaccurate blood sugar levels potentially causing adverse reactions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the health status for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #17) reviewed for assessment accuracy. Resident #17 was incorrectly assessed as not having received dialysis treatments on her most recent Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE]. The facility's failure could place the residents at risk for compromised heath status and for not receiving the proper care and services required to meet their individually assessed needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, 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 residents that meets professional standards of quality of care within 48 hours of a resident's admission for one (Resident #5) of seven residents reviewed for baseline care plans, in that: The facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan that included Resident #5's C-Collar was developed and implemented within 48 hours of admission. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their individualized needs met in a timely manner and communicated to providers which could result in injury, a decline in physical, mental and/or psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview. and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #3 and Resident #22) for care plan revisions, in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #3's and Resident #22's care plans were revised to indicate urinary catheter anchors were included to prevent trauma and urinary tract infections. This deficient practice caused tissue trauma, reoccurring urinary tract infections, and place residents at risk for inadequate care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview. and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #3 and Resident #22) for care plan revisions, in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #3's and Resident #22's care plans were revised to indicate urinary catheter anchors were included to prevent trauma and urinary tract infections. This deficient practice caused tissue trauma, reoccurring urinary tract infections, and place residents at risk for inadequate care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure 1of 1 resident (Resident #195) reviewed for therapeutic diets received the diet ordered per physician orders. The facility failed to provide Resident #195 a reduced concentrated sweets diet at lunch on 01/10/23 and 01/11/23. This failure placed residents receiving therapeutic diets at risk for nutritional deficits, undesired weight gain or loss and a decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to distribute food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for residents who eat in the facility's only dining room. The Dietary Aide failed to prevent potential cross contamination by accepting a resident's personal cup, (Resident #11) not sanatizing or gloving prior to accepting resident's cup, returning to the kitchen during meal service, and filling the cup with a drink without wearing gloves or sanatizing hands. These failures could place residents at-risk of cross contamination which could result in infections or illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the required minimum of 80 square feet of room space per resident in 1 of 40 double occupancy resident rooms by failing to provide a minimum of 160 square feet in resident room # 13. This deficient practice could place residents who may occupy double occupancy resident rooms at risk of not having the personal living space to meet their needs.
5 fire safety citations on file: 3 on April 8, 2025, 1 on February 29, 2024, 1 on January 12, 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) | 3.27 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.45 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.13 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.56 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.26 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 67.9% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 75.0% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.67 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 3.32 on weekdays and 3.13 on weekends, 6% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.19 in April to June 2025 to 3.27 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 | 3.27 | 0.45 | 3.32 | 3.13 | 0.1% | 0 of 90 | 39 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.04 | 0.32 | 3.19 | 2.66 | 0.0% | 1 of 92 | 44 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.17 | 0.38 | 3.33 | 2.75 | 0.0% | 1 of 92 | 47 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.19 | 0.45 | 3.37 | 2.75 | 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.
| 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 | 28.3 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 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 | 2.8 | 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 | 16.0 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.7 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.9 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 4.5 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Seymour Rehabilitation and Healthcare's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 12 eligible stays.
10.7% 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. 29 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.
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. 18 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. 16 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. 22 residents counted.
13.1% 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. 22 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. 1 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: BAYLOR 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baylor County Hospital District | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 10/01/2014 | |
| Hardin, Leslie | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 10/01/2014 | |
| Hardin, Leslie | Corporate director | Individual | 10/01/2014 | |
| Advanced Hcs LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 07/01/2021 | |
| 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.