501 N Medford Dr, Lufkin, TX 75901 · Angelina County · (936) 639-1252
150 certified beds, about 67 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2003
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675962 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 7, 2026, inspectors cited 4 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 22 health citations since October 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (3 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $188,884 in the last three years; the largest was $180,730, and the latest is dated October 29, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.24 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.32 of those hours.
51.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to The Ensign Group, an affiliated group of 344 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 observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #3 and Resident #7) and 3 of 5 staff (CNA A, CNA B and ADON) reviewed for infection control.1. The facility failed to ensure CNA A wore the appropriate PPE when she provided care to Resident #3 who was on EBP on 5/13/2026.2. The facility failed to ensure CNA B and the ADON wore the appropriate PPE when they provided care to Resident #7 who was on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) on 5/13/2026. These failures could place residents at risk of exposure to infectious diseases due to improper infection control practices.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for 1 of 3 (Resident #4) reviewed for incontinent care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4 received proper incontinent care on 5/13/2026. This failure could place residents at risk of embarrassment, discomfort, and skin breakdown.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment remains as free of accident hazards as possible for 2 of 16 residents reviewed for quality of care. (Resident #3 and Resident #6) The facility failed to remove worn and damaged mechanical lift slings from service for Resident's #3 and #6 on 2/26/26. The facility failed to ensure CNA B locked the brakes for safety during a transfer of Resident #3 on 2/26/26. These failures could result in a loss of quality of life due to injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #3) and of 1 of 4 staff (CNA A) reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure CNA A washed or sanitized their hands between glove change during incontinent care provided to Resident #3 on 2/26/2026. These failures could place residents at risk of exposure to infectious diseases due to improper infection control practices.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility was free of pests and rodents for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for pest control. The facility failed to ensure the kitchen remained free from roaches. On 1/05/2026 roaches were observed crawling on the wall behind the bags of cereal in the dry pantry area, and crawling on the floor in the main kitchen prep and cooking area. This failure could place residents at risk for reduced quality of life and poor sanitary environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observations and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #3) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3's comprehensive care plan revision date 11/10/2025 reflected problems, goals or interventions for congestive heart failure and vascular insufficiency including application of compression stockings daily and their removalThis failure could place residents at risk of not receiving appropriate care to meet their current needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the services provided or arranged by the facility, as outlined by the comprehensive care plan, meet professional standards of quality for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for following physician orders. (Resident #3) The facility did not ensure that Resident #3's compression stockings were applied every morning as ordered by the physician on 01/05/2026 and 01/06/2026. This failure could place the residents at risk for increasing edema or worsening of vascular insufficiency (inability to return blood back into circulation).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents requiring respiratory care are provided care, consistent with professional standards of practices for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for respiratory care (Residents #11 and #44). The facility failed to ensure the external filters of Resident #11's and #44's oxygen concentrators were free of dust build up on 1/7/26. These failures could place residents who require respiratory care at risk for respiratory infections, breathing in dust and allergens, decreased effectiveness of oxygen concentrators, and exacerbation of respiratory distress.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review, the facility failed to consult with the physician when the resident experienced a change in condition for 2 of 6 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for a change of condition. The facility failed to follow their skin and wound policy by not notifying the Medical Director of the changes to Resident #1 and Resident #2's wounds. Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] with sepsis (infection in the blood) and osteomyelitis (bone infection). Resident #2 had an unstageable pressure ulcer wound that was identified on 11/10/2024. An Immediate Jeopardy was identified on 11/10/2024 at 11:15 AM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the necessary treatment and services, in accordance with comprehensive assessment and professional standards of practice, to prevent development of pressure injuries was provided for 2 of 6 Residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for pressure injuries. The facility failed to prevent Resident #1 from developing a wound to his sacrum that changed from excoriation to a stage 4 pressure ulcer on 10/24/2024. Resident #1 admitted to the hospital on [DATE] with sepsis (infection in the blood) and osteomyelitis (infection in the bone). The facility failed to prevent Resident #2 from developing a wound to his sacrum that changed from excoriation to an unstageable wound on 11/10/2024. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible for 4 of 24 residents reviewed for quality of care. (Residents #20, #26, #31, and #47). The facility failed to remove worn and damaged mechanical lift slings from service. This deficient practice could result in a loss of quality of life due to injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #184) and 2 of 4 staff (CNA F and CNA G) reviewed for infection control. CNA F and CNA G did not sanitize or wash their hands between glove changes when incontinent care was provided on 11/5/2024 to Resident #184. These failures could place residents at risk of exposure to infectious diseases due to improper infection control practices.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing data was posted daily and readily accessible to residents and visitors with all required information for 1 of 3 days reviewed (11/4/2024) nurse staffing posting. The facility failed to post the daily staffing information in a prominent place on 11/4/2024. This failure could place residents, families, and visitors at risk of not being informed of the census and number of staff working each day to provide care on all shifts.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #5) reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to ensure Resident #5's bed linens were clean when her bed linens were visibly dirty with a dark yellow stain with a brown ring around the outer edges on 10/28/2024. 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 residents received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #4) reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to keep Resident #1 in a safe environment to prevent an elopement on 11/7/2023 when he climbed out of a window in the secured unit and broke a fence in the courtyard. The facility failed to keep Resident #4 in a safe environment to prevent an elopement on 11/20/2023. The noncompliance was identified as PNC (past non-compliance). The IJ (immediate jeopardy) began on 11/7/2023 and ended 11/20/2023. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. These failures could place residents at risk for serious injury and accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for 2 of 7 residents (Resident #3 and Resident #7) reviewed for resident rights. 1. The facility failed to ensure CNA Z did not speak degradingly to Resident #3 during personal care on 2/19/24. 2. The facility failed to ensure CNA G did not tap the hand of Resident #7 in a degrading manner during personal care on 6/29/24. These failures placed residents at risk of decreased feelings of self-worth and decreased quality of life. This was determined to be past noncompliance due to the facility having implemented actions that corrected the noncompliance prior to the beginning of the survey on 6/29/24.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment that did not result in bodily injury within 24 hours for 1 of 17 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse and neglect. The Administrator failed to report an allegation of neglect on 11/7/2023 when Resident #1 eloped from the secured unit out of his window, into the courtyard and broke out of the wooden fence. This failure could place residents at risk for harm and injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents for 4 of 24 residents (Residents #19, #37, #51, and #65) reviewed for call lights. The facility failed to ensure Residents #19, #37, #51, and #65's emergency call light located in the bathroom would reach the floor. The call light cord for Residents #19, #37, #51, and #65 was wrapped around the grab bar. This could affect residents who used their call light or desire to use the call light and place them at risk of not being able to notify staff of their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5 percent. There were 5 errors out of 31 opportunities, resulting in an 16.13% percent medication error involving 1 of 5 residents reviewed for medication pass. (Resident #20) MA H failed to administer Protonix 40 mg delayed release (treats acid reflux), Metoprolol 25 mg extended release (for high blood pressure), Depakote 250 mg delayed release (to treat bipolar), Potassium 8 meq extended release (supplement) and Venlafaxine 225 mg extended release (for increased restlessness and irritability) medications as ordered that indicated do not crush. This failure could place residents at risk for inaccurate drug administration resulting in decline in health and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 3 of 7 staff (CNA D, NA M and ADON N) and 3 of 8 residents (Resident #57, Resident #12, and Resident #17) reviewed for infection control. CNA D did not wash or sanitize her hands when changing gloves while performing incontinent care to Resident #57. ADON did not wash or sanitize her hands when changing gloves while performing incontinent care to Resident #12. NA M wiped Resident #12, a female resident from back to front while performing incontinent care. The facility failed to ensure the urinary catheter bag for Resident #17 did not touch the floor. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene for 2 of 16 residents reviewed for ADLs (Residents #53 and Resident #6) The facility failed to ensure Resident #53 received timely incontinent care. The facility did not clean or trim Resident #6 fingernails. These failures could place residents who required assistance from staff for ADLs 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 residents were free from significant medication errors for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #20) reviewed for significant medication errors. MA H failed to administer Metoprolol 25 mg extended release (for high blood pressure) and Depakote 250 mg delayed release (to treat bipolar) medications as ordered that indicated do not crush. This failure could place residents at risk for inaccurate drug administration resulting in decline in health and decreased quality of life.
5 fire safety citations on file: 1 on January 7, 2026, 2 on November 6, 2024, 2 on October 18, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 29, 2024 | Fine | $180,730 |
| August 21, 2024 | Fine | $8,154 |
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) | 3.24 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.32 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.68 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.86 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.06 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 51.6% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 50.0% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.02 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 3.47 on weekdays and 2.68 on weekends, 23% 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 3.16 in April to June 2025 to 3.24 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 | 3.24 | 0.32 | 3.47 | 2.68 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 67 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.28 | 0.31 | 3.49 | 2.77 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 69 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.53 | 0.40 | 3.80 | 2.82 | 3.9% | 0 of 92 | 70 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.16 | 0.39 | 3.39 | 2.58 | 1.9% | 0 of 91 | 72 |
| 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 | 3.5 | 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 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.7 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.5 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.5 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 26.6 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.2 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.1 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Southland Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (47.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
47.0% 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. 42 eligible stays.
12.0% 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. 63 eligible stays.
10.4% 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. 51 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. 12 residents counted.
5.0% 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. 20 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. 20 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. 7 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: LIBERTY COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO 1. CMS links this home to The Ensign Group, a group of 344 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liberty County Hospital District No 1 | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 05/01/2015 |
| Glazebrook, Patrick | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/01/2015 | |
| Lewis, Carlton | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/18/2015 | |
| Burnam, Soon | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/01/2015 | |
| Keetch, Chad | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2011 | |
| Stratton, Charles | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/07/2005 | |
| Piney Lufkin Healthcare, Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 05/01/2015 | |
| Glazebrook, Patrick | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/01/2015 | |
| Lewis, Carlton | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/18/2015 | |
| Caretrust Gp LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2015 | |
| Caretrust Reit Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2015 | |
| Ctr Partnership LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2015 | |
| Ensign Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/01/2009 | |
| Lufkin Health Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2015 | |
| Piney Lufkin Healthcare, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 11/05/2025 | |
| Glazebrook, Patrick | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2015 | |
| Lewis, Carlton | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/18/2015 |
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.