2500 Songbird Circle, Brownwood, TX 76801 · Brown County · (325) 646-4750
121 certified beds, about 71 residents a day · Government - Hospital district · Medicare and Medicaid since 2003
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675959 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 11, 2025, inspectors cited 10 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
None of its 18 health citations since July 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $10,210 in the last three years; the largest was $10,210, and the latest is dated September 6, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.06 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.19 of those hours.
98.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Creative Solutions in Healthcare, an affiliated group of 149 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 18 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies, and skills set to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service for 1 of 3 dietary staff (DS G) reviewed for qualified dietary staff. The facility failed to ensure the facility's DS G met the requirements for a certified dietary manager. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their nutritional needs met and place them at risk for food born illnesses. Record review of DS G on 12.10.2025 revealed no evidence of a food handler's certificate. During an interview on 12.09.2025 at 05:40 p.m. the DM stated one of the dishwashers did not have a food handler's certificate. She stated he only washed dishes and did not handle any food for the residents. She stated she was not sure why he had not gotten the certificate. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews the facility failed to prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation. The facility failed to ensure kitchen staff (DS F) did not prepare food with an active infection. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for infection and cross contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet, attain, and/or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 3 of 17 residents (Residents #2, Resident #7, and Resident #64) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 had a care plan in place that included fluid restriction. The facility failed to ensure Resident #7, and Resident #64 had a care plan in place that included a fall mat. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving individualized care and services to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to not use any individual working in the facility as a nurse aide for more than four months on a full-time basis unless that individual has completed a training and competency evaluation program for 3 (SNA M, SNA N, and SNA O) of 4 student nurse aides reviewed for nursing services. The facility failed to ensure SNA M, SNA N, and SNA O were certified within the required time. This failure could place residents at risk for receiving inappropriate care from individuals whose skill level was not known.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed for 1 of 5 halls (B hall) reviewed for food and nutrition services. The facility failed to ensure 68 of 68 residents receiving a lunch meal from the kitchen received pecan pie as posted on the weekly menu for lunch on 12/07/2025. The facility failed to ensure 3 of 18 residents receiving a meal from the kitchen on B hall received lunch menu items roasted pork loin and mashed sweet potatoes on 12/07/2025. These failures could place residents at risk of poor intake from being disappointed they did not receive the menu items listed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and records review, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to implement an appropriate action plan to address identified quality deficiencies for 1 of 1 facility. The QAPI committee failed to implement the corrective actions outlined on the Plan of Correction dated 03/14/2025 for deficient practice F728 for 3 (SNA J, SNA M, and SNA N) of 4 SNAs reviewed. This failure placed residents at risk for substandard quality of care due to the failure of the facility to act on an identified problem affecting resident safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 (Resident #32) of 17 reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility failed to ensure the MDS dated 11.27.2025 reflected Resident #32 did not have a diagnosis of pneumonia. This failure could place residents at risk of inaccurate assessments and not receiving appropriate care according to their status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments and to permit only authorized personnel to have access for 1 of 5 (Medication Cart #1) medication carts reviewed for . The facility failed to ensure Medication Cart #1 was locked when unattended by nurse. This failure could place residents at risk of harm or decline in health due to lack of potency of medications/biologicals or misappropriation of medications.
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 (Resident #64) of 17 residents reviewed for hospice services. The facility failed to maintain required hospice forms and documentation that included certificate of terminal illness to ensure that the needs of the residents were addressed and met 24 hours per day to ensure Resident #64 received adequate end-of-life care. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to post in a place readily accessible to residents, and family members and legal representative of residents, the results of the most recent surveys and investigations of the facility including any plans of correction, without identifying information about complainants or residents, for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure the investigations that occurred on 3/14/2025, 5/29/2025, and 10/2/2025 with plans of correction were posted for residents, family members, and visitors to review without identifying information about complainants or residents. This failure could place residents and the residents' family members or representatives at risk for violation of the right to review the facility's survey and investigation findings without asking the facility to review the reports.
Inspectors wroteBased observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments for 2 (Resident #4 and Resident #5) of 7 residents reviewed for label and storage of drugs and biologicals. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4's and Resident #5's medications were locked when unattended. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4's respiratory treatments were not left at bedside and used unsupervised. This failure could place residents at risk of having access to unauthorized medications, leading to possible harm or drug diversions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to not use any individual working in the facility as a nurse aide for more than four months on a full-time basis unless that individual has completed a training and competency evaluation program for 1 (SNA A) of 3 student nurse aides reviewed. The facility failed to ensure SNA A was certified within the required time. This failure place residents at risk for receiving inappropriate care from an individual whose skill level was not known.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a performance review of every nurse aide at least once every 12 months and provide regular in-service education based on the outcome of the review for 1 (SNA A) of 6 SNAs and CNAs whose records were reviewed, by failing to ensure: SNA A had an annual performance review and completed 12 hours annual in-service education in 2024 and 2025 which was based on a performance review. This facility failure could affect the residents by placing them at risk for a physical decline in their health status.
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, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals and preferences for 2 of 2 residents (Residents #38 and #61) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure Residents #38 and #61'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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that drugs and biologicals used in the facility were secured and stored in accordance with current accepted professional principles for 2 (Hall A and Hall E ) of 5 medication carts observed for medication storage. The facility did not ensure Hall A and Hall E Medication Carts was locked and secure. This failure could place the residents at risk of gaining access to unlocked medications not prescribed to them.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review the facility did not make sure that residents receive adequate dialysis care for for 2 (Resident #25 and Resident # 43) of 3 residents in that: The facility failed to ensure physician orders were written for Resident #25 and Resident #43. This failure could place residents at risk of having errors in care and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, that were complete and accurate for 2 (Resident #25 and Resident # 43) of 3 residents reviewed for resident records. The facility failed to ensure physician orders were written for Resident #25 and Resident #43. This failure could place residents at risk of having errors in care and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility did not make sure that resdients withloss of bladder control received treatment or services to prevent infections and help get normal bladder control for 1 of 18 resident (Residents #30) reviewed in that: CNA-A failed to provide incontinent care in a manner to prevent potential spread of infection. This failure could place residents at risk for the spread of infection and skin complications.
7 fire safety citations on file: 4 on December 11, 2025, 2 on September 6, 2024, 1 on July 11, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| September 6, 2024 | Fine | $10,210 |
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) | 3.06 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.19 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.58 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.76 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.11 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 98.8% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 100.0% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.47 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 3.25 on weekdays and 2.58 on weekends, 21% 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 3.24 in April to June 2025 to 3.06 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 | 3.06 | 0.19 | 3.25 | 2.58 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 71 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.26 | 0.20 | 3.42 | 2.85 | 0.0% | 2 of 92 | 70 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.88 | 0.24 | 3.02 | 2.53 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 79 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.24 | 0.24 | 3.37 | 2.92 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 78 |
| 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.
Trains nurse aides: this home runs a state-approved CNA program (state list: HHSC Approved NATCEP Providers, as of October 6, 2026). A nursing home cannot charge aides it employs, or has offered a job, for state-approved training (42 CFR 483.152(c)). See Songbird Lodge Nurse Aide Training on CareerFunded, our sister site for career training.
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 | 19.8 | 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 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.8 | 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 | 1.5 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.8 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 33.4 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.9 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Songbird Lodge's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (50.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
50.3% 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. 68 eligible stays.
12.1% 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. 89 eligible stays.
7.4% 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. 57 eligible stays.
77.1% 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. 48 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. 66 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. 66 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. 3 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: WEST WHARTON COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Creative Solutions in Healthcare, a group of 149 nursing homes averaging 2.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Huggins, Linda | Corporate director | Individual | 09/01/2022 | |
| Mak, David | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/17/2021 | |
| Brownwood IV Enterprises, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2022 | |
| Blake, Gary | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2022 | |
| Blake, Malisa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2022 |
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.