4600 Heritage Trace Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76244 · Tarrant County · (817) 741-9360
120 certified beds, about 113 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1994
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 676317 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 4, 2025, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 31 health citations since August 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $65,529 in the last three years; the largest was $56,550, and the latest is dated May 31, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.41 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.57 of those hours.
47.7% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Cantex Continuing Care, an affiliated group of 37 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 31 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to provide treatment to Resident #1's right elbow according to physician's orders. This failure placed residents of risk for not receiving appropriate care and treatment and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure each bed had ceiling suspended curtains, which extend around the bed to provide total visual privacy in combination with adjacent walls and curtains for 2 of 21 residents (Resident #16 and #82) reviewed for privacy curtains. The facility failed to ensure Residents #16 and #82 were ensured full visual privacy by not having ceiling suspended curtains that extend around the bed. These failures could place residents at risk of lowered self-esteem.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident was not given a psychotropic drug unless the medication was necessary to treat a specific condition as diagnosed and documented in the clinical record for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #132) reviewed for unnecessary medications, in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #132 was not prescribed a psychotropic drug for anxiety longer than 14 days PRN. Resident #132 was ordered PRN Alprazolam (a benzodiazepine medication used primarily to treat anxiety disorders and severe agitation) on 11/26/25 without a stop date. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of receiving unnecessary psychotropic medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the MDS assessment accurately reflected the resident status for 1 of 44 residents (Resident #88) reviewed for assessment accuracy. The facility failed to ensure Residents #88's MDS assessments were accurately coded for dialysis treatment. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the appropriate care and services to maintain the highest level of well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 44 residents (Resident #17) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #17's care plan addressed the use of a back brace and bilateral foot protectors. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the care required to meet their individual needsFindings included:Record review of Resident #17's admission MDS assessment, dated 11/17/25, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for 1 of 44 residents (Resident #17) reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to obtain physician orders for the use of a back brace and bilateral foot protectors for Resident #17. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving appropriate care and worsening of their conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feedings for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #102) reviewed for tube feedings. The facility failed to ensure Resident #102's tube feeding was administered per physician orders at a rate of 55 ml per hour continuously on 12/02/25 and 12/03/25. This failure could affect residents receiving enteral nutrition/hydration and place them at risk of overfeeding.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who required dialysis received such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 2 of 2 residents (Residents #82 and #88) reviewed for dialysis.1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #82 and Resident #88 had a physician order to complete dialysis treatment. This failure could place residents at risk of inadequate monitoring after returning to facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #8) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #8 received her morning medications when LVN G prepared the medications and set them down on the hall railing to assist another resident. LVN G did not return to retrieve the medications off the hall and administer them to Resident #8. These failures could place residents at risk for medication error, drug diversion, and delay in medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement their written policies and procedures to prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property for 1 of 6 residents (Residents #1) reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility failed to report an incident where Resident #1 was found with a call light around his neck on 08/26/25. This failure could place residents at risk of neglect, injury, and lack of timely reporting of incidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving neglect, which included injuries of unknown source, were reported immediately, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events that caused the allegation involved abuse or resulted in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that caused the allegation did not involve abuse and did not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials, which included the State Survey Agency, in accordance with State law through established procedures for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility failed to implement their policy on reporting an incident involving Resident #1 when he was found with a call light cord around his neck on 08/26/25. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident was treated with respect and dignity in a manner and in an environment which promotes maintenance of enhancement of his or her quality of life and recognizing each resident individually for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #21) reviewed for resident rights. LVN D failed to treat Resident #2 with dignity and respect when she raised her voice and scolded the resident. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance. The noncompliance began on 01/28/25 and ended on 01/28/25. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. This failure placed residents at risk for diminished quality of life, loss of dignity and self-worth.
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 4 residents (Resident #1) observed for infection control. LVN A, CNA B and CNA C failed to wear a gown while providing care for Resident #1, who was on enhanced barrier precautions. This failure could lead to the resident being exposed to infections from other residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident or the resident's representative of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing and in a language and manner they understand and send a copy of the notice to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for discharge notices. The facility failed to notify Resident #1 in writing of his transfer/discharge to the hospital for altered mental status, the reason for the transfer, and the right to appeal and they failed to send a copy of the notice to the Ombudsman as soon as practicable. This failure could place residents at risk of being transferred or discharged , and not having access to available advocacy services, discharge/transfer options, and appeal processes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for one of two residents (Residents #2) reviewed for accidents. CNA C failed to obtain assistance from another staff member when using a mechanical lift to transfer Resident #2 from his bed to his wheelchair and then left the resident unsupervised mid-transfer to obtain assistance in completing the transfer. This failure place residents at risk for accidents and injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident on two of three medication carts (600 Hall and split hall) one medication room(central supply cabinent) and 4 of 4 (Residents #8, #21, #66 and #126 ) reviewed for pharmacy services. 1. The facility failed to ensure the 600 Hall nurses' medication cart contained accurate narcotic logs for Resident #126. 2. The facility failed to ensure the split hall nurses' medication cart contained accurate narcotic logs for Residents #8, #21, and #66. 3. The facility failed to ensure expired medications in Central Supply were removed and destroyed. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility provided food that was palatable, for one of one observed meal reviewed for dietary services. The facility failed to serve food that had a palatable texture during the lunch meal on 09/05/24. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk of weight loss, altered nutritional status, and a diminished quality of life.
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 the facility's only kitchen and the 300-hall nutrition room. 1. The facility failed to ensure food items stored in the freezer were properly labeled with the contents after being removed from the original packages and not dated to reflect when the food items were opened. 2. The facility failed to ensure food items stored in the refrigerator were properly discarded. 3. The facility failed to ensure the 300-hall nutrition room's ice machine was cleaned prior to being used. These failures could place all residents at risk for food contamination and food borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident's right that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mentla and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #45) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to revise and update Resident #45's comprehensive care plan with new diet orders. This failure could affect residents of the facility by not addressing their physical, mental, and psychosocial needs for each to attain or maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial outcome.
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 receives the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #290) reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to provide Resident #290 assistance with his personal hygiene by not providing scheduled showers. This failure could place the residents at risk for decreased feelings of self-worth, skin breakdown, and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure parenteral fluids were administered consistent with professional standards of practice and in accordance with physician orders, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goal and preferences for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #242) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #242's intravenous medication bag and tubing were labeled with dates time and initials. These failures could place residents at risk for medication error, and delay in medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records that were complete and accurate for one (Resident #46) of six residents reviewed for clinical records. The facility failed to accurately document in Resident #46's progress notes about her care. This failure could place residents at risk for incomplete and inaccurately documented medical record that included their progress treatment, services, and interventions. Findings includde: Review of Resident #46's Face Sheet reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #46's 5-day MDS Assessment, dated 08/03/24, reflected she had a BIMS score of 14, indicating no cognitive impairment. Further review revealed she had an indwelling catheter. Her active diagnoses included diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and a hip fracture. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that the resident had the right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services outside the facility for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for resident rights. -The facility failed to allow Resident #1 to exercise his right to choose his pain management provider after he expressed concerns for his pain management regimen and the facility's contracted provider. This failure could place residents at risk of decreased quality of care and treatment due to their lack of free choice for their care providers while in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs in order attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for one (Resident #1) of eleven residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was attended and supervised while left in 96-degree heat for approximately 2 hours resulting in unresponsiveness, second degree skin burns, hospitalization, and heat stroke. The facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan to address Resident #1's behavior to ensure his safety while exercising his right to sit on the facility's patio during 96-degree heat, resulting in unresponsiveness, second degree skin burns, hospitalization, and heat stroke. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for one (Resident #1) eleven residents reviewed for accidents and hazards. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was attended and supervised while left in 96-degree heat for approximately 2 hours resulting in unresponsiveness, second degree skin burns, hospitalization, and heat stroke. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was safe from hazards when he sat on the facility's patio in 96-degree heat for at approximately 2 hours resulting in unresponsiveness, second degree skin burns, hospitalization, and heat stroke. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 05/30/2024. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles in locked compartments and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for one (Resident #2) of eleven residents reviewed for storage of drugs. LVN C left Resident #2's morning IV medication and injection medication on top of the 600 Hall Nurse Medication Cart unattended. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of medication misuse and diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to, in accordance with State and Federal laws, store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature controls, and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for one (600 Hall Medication Cart) of four Medications Carts reviewed for security. LVN C failed to ensure the 600 Hall Medication Cart was locked when unattended. This failure could place residents at risk of having access to unauthorized medications and/or lead to possible harm or drug diversions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 (Resident #1) of 4 residents reviewed for accidents. The faciltiy failed to provide Resident #1, who had cognitive impairment and unsteady gait with a history of attempting to get up from her wheelchair unassisted, adequate supervision to prevent her falling. The resident was left alone in her room, and she fell sustaining lacerations to multiple sites on her scalp and neck and an injury to her wrist, which required the resident to be sent to the hospital where she received six staples to the back of her scalp, two staples on the left side of her scalp, and a brace to her wrist for a contusion. This failure could place residents at risk for serious injuries or harm, decline in health, and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment were reported immediately to the Administrator for one (Resident #1) of eight residents reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to ensure LVN A immediately reported an allegation of abuse, on 03/12/24, when Resident #1 stated he did not want to work with his overnight staff because they were rude to him, to the Administrator (Abuse Coordinator). This failure could place residents at risk of emotional, physical, and mental abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living with the necessary services to maintain grooming and personal hygiene for one (Residents #2) of eight residents reviewed for facial hair. The facility failed to remove Resident #2's facial hair. This failure could place residents at risk for social isolation, loss of dignity, and self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to, in accordance with State and Federal laws, store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature controls, and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for one (Resident #26) of 4 residents reviewed for medication storage. RN A failed to secure Resident #26's medication and left it unattended in the room with CNA B. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk for medication errors and receiving less than therapeutic benefits from medications.
6 fire safety citations on file: 5 on September 6, 2024, 1 on July 1, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 31, 2024 | Fine | $56,550 |
| March 29, 2024 | Fine | $8,979 |
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) | 3.41 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.57 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.00 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.82 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.02 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 47.7% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 12.5% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.95 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 3.58 on weekdays and 3.00 on weekends, 16% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.37 in April to June 2025 to 3.41 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 | 3.41 | 0.57 | 3.58 | 3.00 | 0.6% | 0 of 90 | 113 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.26 | 0.51 | 3.41 | 2.87 | 0.6% | 0 of 92 | 110 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.36 | 0.37 | 3.52 | 2.93 | 0.9% | 0 of 92 | 99 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.37 | 0.45 | 3.55 | 2.92 | 1.3% | 0 of 91 | 97 |
| 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 | 3.4 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 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 | 4.3 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.6 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.9 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 5.4 | 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 | 1.0 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for The Harrison at Heritage's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (55.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
55.4% 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. 169 eligible stays.
10.9% 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. 181 eligible stays.
7.6% 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. 119 eligible stays.
69.3% 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. 88 residents counted.
0.8% 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. 123 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. 123 residents counted.
83.6% this home
Median of homes: Texas98.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 55 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: DALLAS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Cantex Continuing Care, a group of 37 nursing homes averaging 3.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dallas County Hospital District | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 09/01/2019 |
| Castaneda, Edmundo | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/10/2022 | |
| Cerise, Frederick | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/24/2014 | |
| Fw Senior Community Ltd Co | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2019 | |
| Davis-Bean, Laura | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/30/2017 | |
| Fw Senior Community Ltd Co | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 03/31/2025 | |
| Ambalong, Maria Pharah | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/19/2021 | |
| Davis-Bean, Laura | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 11/30/2017 | |
| Haider, Munawar | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/26/2006 |
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.