8017 W. Virginia Dr., Dallas, TX 75237 · Dallas County · (972) 709-1112
124 certified beds, about 64 residents a day · For profit - Partnership · Medicare and Medicaid since 2000
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675820 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 11, 2025, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 29 health citations since July 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (3 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $29,969 in the last three years; the largest was $20,856, and the latest is dated May 7, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 2.90 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.20 of those hours.
68.6% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Paramount Healthcare, an affiliated group of 8 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 29 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a discharge summary for 4 of residents (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4) 4 residents reviewed for discharge summaries. 1. The facility failed to ensure 4 of residents (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4) discharged the facility with a discharge summary that included an accurate and current description of the clinical status of the resident and sufficiently detailed, individualized care instructions to ensure that care is coordinated and the resident transitions safely from one setting to another. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving appropriate and timely care due to confusion among various facilities, agencies, practitioners, and caregivers involved with the resident's care. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible for 1 (300 Hall) out of 1 hallways reviewed for accidents and hazards. 1. The facility failed to ensure that 1 of 1 mechanical lift on the 300 Hall was locked, secured and stored in a secure designated area when not in use. 2. CNA B did not remove the unlocked and unsecured mechanical lift parked on the hallway of the 300 Hall in between residents' rooms. This failure could place residents, visitors and staff at risk of falls and/or injuries. Findings Included: An observation on 06/16/26 at 11:16 AM revealed one unlocked and unsecured mechanical lift parked on the hallway on the 300 Hall in between residents rooms. There were not any residents observed in the hallway during the observation. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident rights to a comfortable, homelike environment, with accommodation of needs for 6 of 12 residents (Resident #43, Resident #60, Resident #39, Resident #62, Resident #63, Resident#56) reviewed for residents' rights.1. The facility failed to ensure the temperature in Resident #60's room was maintained at a safe and comfortable range of 71 to 81 degrees on 9/23/25. The room temperature was 82 degrees Fahrenheit.2. The facility failed on 09/23/2025 to ensure the call light system was accessible to a resident, the call light was lying on the floor in the shared residents' toilets located inside the residents' rooms on 9/23/25 for Resident #43, Resident # 60, Resident #39, and Resident #62.3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #63's and Resident #56's call light was within reach on 09/23/25. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents with limited range of motion received appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and/or prevent further decrease in range of motion for 2 of 2 (Resident #34, and Resident #45) residents reviewed for range of motion. The facility failed to implement interventions to prevent further decline of Resident #34 and Resident #45's contractures to their left hands on 09/23/25. This failure could place residents at risk for decline in range of motion, decreased mobility, and worsening of contractures. 1-Record review of Resident #34's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE] reflected a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 3 (Resident #6, #14, #30) of 7 residents reviewed for accidents and hazards.1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #14 had a wanderguard and the placement and functioning of the device was monitored and documented in his medical record. 2. The Administrator and DON failed to implement a system to ensure residents (Resident #6, #14, and #30) at risk for wandering/elopement were monitored and documented in the resident's treatment administration record and that staff were following current physician orders for wanderguard placement. These failures could place the residents at risk for elopement and serious harm.
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 1 of 6 residents (Resident #53) reviewed for storage of medications. The facility failed to ensure Resident #53's Econazole Nitrate Cream (treatment for skin infection) labeled topical ointment, was secured, and not left at the bedside. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for loss of biologicals, overuse of medication, and not receiving the therapeutic benefit of the medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs and describes the services that are to be furnished to meet the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial wellbeing for 6 (Residents #14, #8, #6, #29, #30 and #37) of 24 residents reviewed for care plans.1. The facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for Residents #8 and #14 who were at risk for elopement/wandering.2. The facility failed to develop a Kardex for Residents #6, #8, #14, #29, #30 and #37 at risk for elopement/wandering. These failures place residents at risk of not having their individualized needs meet, preventative measures and interventions in place to prevent elopements.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene for 4 (Resident #37, Resident #34, Resident #45, and Resident #60) of 12 residents reviewed for personal care. The facility failed to ensure: 1- Resident #37's nails were trimmed and without jagged edges. 2- Resident #60's nails were trimmed and cleaned. 3- Resident#34's nails were trimmed and cleaned. 4- Resident#45's nails was trimmed and without jagged edges. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, 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 2 (300-400-600-Hall cart) medication carts reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure expired medication, was removed from the 300-400-600-Hall medication cart. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving an expired medication, not reaching the intended therapeutic dose, and/or contamination from expired supplies.
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 infection for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #43) observed for infection control. CNA M failed to perform hand hygiene and change gloves while providing incontinence care to Resident # 43. This failure could place residents at risk for infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a comfortable, homelike environment, with safe temperature levels within a range of 71 to 81 degrees Fahrenheit for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #60) observed for environmental concerns. The facility failed to ensure the temperature in Resident #60's room was maintained at a safe and comfortable range on 9/23/25. The room temperature was 82 degrees Fahrenheit. This failure could place residents at risk of an uncomfortable environment and diminish their quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as is possible and each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 (Resident #1) of 6 residents reviewed for quality of care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1, who had a history if eloping and wore a wandergaurd, was provided with adequate supervision to prevent him from eloping from the facility on 03/28/25. The facility concluded Resident #1 eloped through the facility's exit door that did not alarm when opened. 2. The facility failed to complete an elopement assessment for Resident #1 prior to his elopement on 03/28/25 The non-compliance was identified as past non-compliance. The Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) began 03/28/25 and ended on 04/01/25. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect are reported immediately, but not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the State Survey Agency in accordance with State law through established procedures for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse and neglect, in that: The facility did not report an incident of potential neglect for Resident #1 to the State Survey Agency within 24 hours, when Resident #1 eloped from the facility on 03/28/25 through the facility's exit door, that did not alarm when opened. This deficient practice could place residents at-risk of not having incident and accident investigations reported within the timeframe required. reported appropriately.
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 (Resident #1) of 6 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure LVN A properly received inventory of Resident #1's Acetaminophen-Codeine #3 (controlled medication) from the pharmacy, resulting in 26 missing tablets. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance (PNC). The noncompliance began on 10/07/24 and ended on 10/17/24. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. This failure placed residents at risk for unrelieved pain due to their medication not being readily available.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and records review, the facility failed to ensure residents with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for three (Resident #1, Resident #2 and Resident #4) of three residents reviewed for quality of care. 1. On 02/01/25 and 02/02/25, the facility failed to provide wound care to Resident #1's sacral wound. 2. On 02/07/25, the facility failed to follow physician orders to cover Resident #1's and Resident #2's wound(s) with a dry dressing as needed for dislodgment of dressing. 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records review the facility failed to ensure a resident who is incontinent of bladder receives appropriate treatment and services for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #2 and Resident #4) reviewed for catheter care. 1. On 02/07/25, LVN B failed to provide ongoing monitoring and report any changes in condition to Resident #2's and Resident #4's urinary catheters (a thin, flexible tube that's inserted into the body to drain urine) and urine output. These failures could place residents at risk of improper catheter care and catheter-associated urinary tract infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on 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 one (Resident #2) of five residents reviewed for medications and pharmacy services. The facility failed to administer Resident #2's blood pressure medication Midodrine in accordance with physician orders, by not obtaining his blood pressure prior to administering the medication on seven occasions from 01/12/25 through 01/23/25. The failure could place residents at risk for not receiving therapeutic dosages of their medications as ordered by the physician and a potential for decreased health status, including low blood pressure which could cause fainting or dizziness because the brain was not receiving enough blood.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident that are complete; accurately documented; readily accessible; and systematically organized for three (Residents #1, #2 and #3) of five residents reviewed for pressure ulcers and non-pressure wounds. 1. The facility failed to document wound care was provided for Resident #1 in January 2025 on twelve occasions. 2. The facility failed to document wound care was provided for Resident #2 in January and February 2025 on eight occasions. 3. The facility failed to document wound care was provided for Resident #3 in January 2025 and February 2025 on 28 occasions. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain the hospice nursing documentation, most recent hospice plan of care specific to each patient, hospice election form, physician certification and recertification of the terminal illness specific to each patient, names and contact information for hospice personnel involved in hospice care of each patient, hospice medications information, hospice physician and attending physician orders for one (Resident #5) of three residents reviewed for hospice services and records. The facility failed to obtain the required hospice documentation for Resident #5 when she was admitted to hospice. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk for services and treatments not being coordinated for end-of-life care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rate was not five percent or greater when the facility had a medication error rate of 29% based on 9 errors of 31 opportunities, which involved 2 of 4 residents (Resident #67 and # 56) observed during medication administration. -The facility failed to ensure Resident #67's extended release (ER) medications were not crushed. - LVN A failed to follow physician orders for water flushes after medication administration given via the G-Tube (a tube into the stomach that delivers formula for nutrition and medication) for Resident #56. - LVN A failed to follow facility policy by crushing all medications (tablets) together during observation on medication administration on Resident #56. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection 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 (Resident #10) of 3 residents observed infection control in that: MA C failed to follow infection control requirements while performing peri care for Resident #10. These failures could affect residents who receive peri care could result in cross contamination of germs and could result in an infection or hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately consult with the residents' physicians when there was a significant change in the resident's physical, mental or psychosocial status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications; or when there is a need to alter treatment significantly, for two (Residents ##3 and #4) of five residents reviewed for resident rights. 1. The facility failed to consult with the physician when Resident #3 had a change in condition which resulted in a dangerously low blood sugar of 40. Resident #3 died at the facility unexpectedly within 24 hours of his change of condition. 2. The facility failed to notify the physician [MD O] or physician extender [NP M] of Resident #4's x-ray results when he had a change in condition on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record, the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive resident-centered care plan for two (Residents #3 and #4) of five residents reviewed for quality of care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3 was accurately assessed, monitored, and treated for a change of condition he had with a blood sugar of 40 at 8:15 AM during the morning shift on [DATE]. There was no documented evidence the facility monitored the residents' change of condition after that shift. Resident #3 died later that night on the overnight shift around 2:05 AM with a cause of death as unknown. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4 was accurately assessed, monitored and treated for a change in condition on [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews 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 one (Resident #2) of six residents reviewed for pharmacy services. MA G failed to follow current physician orders and provide Resident #2 with her medications during the morning shift on 05/08/24, 05/09/24, 05/10/24, 05/13/24, 05/14/24, 05/15/24, 05/16/24, 05/17/24, 05/20/24, 05/21/24, 05/22/24, 05/28/24, 05/29/24, 05/30/24 and 05/31/24. Additionally, no blood pressure reading were recorded for those morning shifts to assess if Resident #2 required her blood pressure medication. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received necessary services to maintain personal hygiene for one (Resident #1) of four residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to provide shower/bath ADL care according to resident preference for May 2024 and June 2024. This failure had the potential to affect residents who were dependent on staff for bathing by placing them at risk for poor personal hygiene, odors, embarrassment, low self-worth and a decline in their quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for three (Residents #1, #2, and #3) of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. 1. Resident #1 was not provided wound care for an unstageable pressure ulcer to the sacrum (a large, triangular bone at the base of the spine) on 03/03/24 and 03/09/24. 2. Resident #2 was not provided wound care for an unstageable pressure ulcer to the coccyx (a small triangular bone at the base of the spine commonly known as the tailbone) on 03/02/24, 03/03/24, and 03/09/24. 3. Resident #3 was not provided wound care for a sacrococcyx (center mid buttock below the sacrum) pressure ulcer (no stage indicated) on 03/09/24. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that are complete and accurately documented for 3 of 3 residents (Residents #1, #2 and #3) reviewed for accuracy of medical records. 1. The facility failed to ensure staff documented Resident #1's wound care on the TAR after performing wound care on 03/04/24. 2. The facility failed to ensure staff documented Resident #2's wound care on the TAR after performing wound care on 03/16/24. 3. The facility failed to ensure staff documented Resident #3's wound care on the TAR after performing wound care on 03/06/24. These failures could place residents at risk for treatment errors and omissions in care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a discharge summary that included but was not limited to, (i) A recapitulation of the resident's stay that includes, but was not limited to, diagnoses, course of illness/treatment or therapy, and pertinent lab, radiology, and consultation results; (ii) A final summary of the resident's status; (iii) Reconciliation of all pre-discharge medications with the resident's post-discharge medications (both prescribed and over-the-counter) for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for discharge planning. 1. The facility failed to complete a discharge summary and a reconciliation of medications for Resident #1 when he planned discharge home on [DATE]. This failure could place residents at risk of a recapitulation of the stay being unavailable to help ensure continuity of care once they went back home.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services including procedures that assure the accurate dispensing and administering of all drugs and biologicals to meet the needs of each resident for 2 (Resident# 31 and Resident #32) of 5 residents reviewed for pharmaceutical services. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #31 took her medications when they were administered, which resulted in the resident saving the medication in her room. 2. The facility failed to ensure the medication carts on the 500, 600 and 700 halls contained accurate narcotic log for Residents #32. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the therapy needed and could place residents at risk for drug diversion and delay in medication administration.
22 fire safety citations on file: 4 on December 11, 2025, 15 on August 29, 2024, 3 on July 12, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 7, 2025 | Fine | $9,113 |
| July 1, 2024 | Fine | $20,856 |
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) | 2.90 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.20 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.41 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.61 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.08 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 68.6% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 66.7% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.59 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 3.10 on weekdays and 2.41 on weekends, 22% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.1% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.24 in April to June 2025 to 2.90 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 | 2.90 | 0.20 | 3.10 | 2.41 | 1.1% | 2 of 90 | 64 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.97 | 0.41 | 3.12 | 2.59 | 0.8% | 0 of 92 | 60 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.10 | 0.39 | 3.27 | 2.66 | 0.8% | 0 of 92 | 61 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.24 | 0.21 | 3.44 | 2.76 | 1.6% | 1 of 91 | 63 |
| 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 | 12.3 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.3 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 20.6 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.5 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.2 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 26.8 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 12.9 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for The Lennwood Nursing and Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (59.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
59.3% 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. 33 eligible stays.
9.7% 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. 44 eligible stays.
7.5% 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. 29 eligible stays.
39.1% 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. 23 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. 48 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. 48 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. 12 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: HAMILTON COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Paramount Healthcare, a group of 8 nursing homes averaging 3.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dkp Investments, LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Llld Associates, LP | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Port Au Prince LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Hooper, Grady | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| D K Lancaster Land Co LP | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Dkp Investments, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Golden, Lauren | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Prince, Danny | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| D K Lancaster Land Co LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/22/2025 | |
| Dkp Investments, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Llld Associates, LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Port Au Prince LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Brown, Deandre | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Johnson, Michelle | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2024 |
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.