3710 4th St., Lubbock, TX 79415 · Lubbock County · (806) 763-4455
120 certified beds, about 111 residents a day · Government - Hospital district · Medicare and Medicaid since 2002
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675925 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 4, 2026, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 44 health citations since September 2023, 5 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (5 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $26,949 in the last three years; the largest was $15,167, and the latest is dated February 23, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.00 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.26 of those hours.
53.8% 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 44 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to treat residents with respect, dignity, and care in a manner and in an environment that promotes the maintenance or enhancement of their quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for dignity in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's call light was answered in a timely manner. This could place residents at risk for falls, diminished quality of life and loss of dignity and self-worth.
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 include measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 2 of 7 residents (Resident #2 and Resident #3) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop a care plan for Resident #2's and Resident #3's enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving the care required to meet their individual needs.
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 7 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure PTA B followed EBP by wearing a gown while assisting Resident #2 in his room. This failure could place residents at risk for cross contamination and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to treat residents with respect, dignity, and care in a manner and in an environment that promotes the maintenance or enhancement of their quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality. The facility failed to protect and promote the rights of 12 confidential residents in that: The facility failed to ensure staff were not utilizing their personal cell phones while providing care, which included assisting residents with their showers and performing peri-care. This could place residents at risk for diminished quality of life and loss of dignity and self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide food and drink that was palatable, attractive and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 4 of 19 residents (Residents #10, #30, #80, #93, and 15 confidential residents) reviewed for food palatability. A. Resident #10, #30, #80, #93 voiced concerned of cold food. B. Six of the 8 foods sampled on the meal tray were cold. These failures could result in a decline in residents' consumption of food and residents to have unwanted weight loss.
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 facility 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food safety. 1) The facility failed to ensure food items in the refrigerator (x1), and freezer (x1), were labeled and stored in accordance with the professional standards for food service. 2) The facility failed to ensure the leaking drainage pipe from the ice machine was fixed. 3) The facility failed to ensure the kitchen ceiling vents were clean. These failures could place residents at risk for food-borne illness and cross contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly for 2 of 2 dumpsters (dumpsters #1 and #2), in that: -The doors for dumpsters #1 and #2 were left open.-Garbage was left outside of the dumpster. These failures could place residents at risk of exposure to germs and diseases carried by vermin and rodents. Observation on 06/02/2026 at 7:10 a.m., revealed the facility's dumpster area, which was in the lot next to the loading dock had commercial-size dumpsters (#1 and #2), with open doors. Further observations revealed improperly trashed recliner chair on the ground behind both dumpsters (#1 and #2). During an interview on 06/04/2026 at 2:22 p.m., the HKS stated that MM was responsible for keeping the dumpster area clean and closing the door and she helped sometimes. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive for 2 of 6 residents (Residents #9 and #35) reviewed for advanced directives. The facility failed to ensure Residents #9 and #35 who were listed as DNR (Do Not Resuscitate), had Do Not Resuscitate forms that did not have missed required information. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their end-of-life wishes honored and incomplete records.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored and maintained in accordance with currently accepted professional standards for 2 of 4 medication carts (Sage and Oak medication carts) reviewed for medication storage. The facility failed to ensure there was not a loose pill in the Oak medication cart. The facility failed to ensure there was not two loose pills in the Sage medication cart. These failures could place residents at risk for medication errors and adverse drug reactions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure personnel provide basic life support, including CPR, to a resident requiring such care prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel and subject to related physician orders and the resident's advance directives for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for full code status. The facility failed to ensure staff were able to perform CPR, according to standard protocol, when RN J and LVN S were unable to provide timely rescue breaths to Resident #1 during a code, due to the Ambu bag (a device used to provide manual ventilation) not being readily available on the crash cart. Resident #1 was pronounced deceased at the facility. An Immediate Jeopardy was identified on [DATE] at 5:05 PM. The IJ template was provided to the facility Administrator on [DATE] at 5:07 PM. [...]
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 resident's choices for 1 (Resident #1) of 27 residents reviewed for quality of care. 1. The facility failed to ensure that the crash cart shared for Magnolia hall, housing Resident #1, and Sage Hall (which housed a total of twenty-seven residents who had elected Full Code status) was audited daily, sanitized, and had all resuscitative equipment readily available and easily located to deliver life-saving measures in the event of a medical emergency. 2. [...]
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 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure LVN A followed Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) when flushing the central line for Resident #1. This failure could place residents at risk for cross contamination and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to notify the residents physician and representative regarding a change in the resident's condition, for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for changes in condition - The facility failed to immediately consult with Resident #1's physician when Resident #1 sustained a fall with complaints of pain to the knee on the evening of 08/07/2025 until the next morning 08/08/2025, because CNA C failed to inform nursing staff. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 08/21/25 at 2:23 PM. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 2:51 PM. While the IJ was removed on 8/22/2025 at 2:51pm, the facility remained out of compliance at a severity level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy and a scope of isolated, because all staff had not been trained on 08/22/2025. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were free from neglect for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for neglect in that: 1. CNA C neglected to notify LVN A or any licensed nurse of Resident #1's incident on 8/7/2025, that resulted in a broken distal femur. 2. The facility neglected to ensure Resident #1's pain was adequately assessed and treated for approximately 12 hours on 8/7/2025-8/8/2025, after Resident #1 reported having pain to her right knee following an incident with CNA C. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 08/21/25 at 2:23 PM. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 2:51 PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibited and prevented abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for neglect.1. The facility failed to ensure staff followed the abuse policy by not preventing neglect for Resident #1 on 8/7/2025 when CNA C failed to notify a licensed nurse of an incident that resulted in a broken distal femur for Resident #1. 2. The facility failed to ensure staff followed the abuse policy by not preventing neglect for Resident #1 on 8/7/2025 when staff failed to adequately assess and treat Resident #1's report of pain, for approximately 12 hours, to her right knee following an incident with CNA C. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 08/21/25 at 2:23 PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of any significant medication errors for 1 (Resident #1) of 6 residents reviewed for medication administration. 1. The facility failed to ensure furosemide (Lasix) (used to treat conditions involving fluid retention) administered to Resident #1 as ordered from 5/9/2025-5/20/2025 (12 days). This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving medications as ordered by their physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide information to resident's and their representatives on their rights related to filing grievances or concerns for 12 of 30 confidential residents. The facility failed to ensure 12 of 30 confidential residents were provided, through postings in prominent locations; the Grievance Procedure, were provided access to the Grievance form, were provided information regarding who the facility grievance officer was, their contact information, and how to file an anonymous grievance. This failure could place the residents at risk of unresolved grievances and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on Observations, Interviews, and Record Review the facility failed to ensure residents were free from involuntary seclusion for 5 of 32 (Residents #8, #24, #59, #89, and #96) residents reviewed for involuntary seclusion. The facility failed to obtain a physician order, documenting the clinical criteria met for placement in the secured/locked unit for Residents #8, #24, #59, #89, and #96. There was no update to the Care Plan for Resident #96 for placement in the secure/locked unit. This failure could place residents at risk of isolation, decreased quality of life, and psychosocial harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for dietary services. The facility failed to properly store, label. and date foods stored in the refrigerator and freezer. The facility failed to properly store, label, and date perishable food items stored in the dry storage. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, comfortable, and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases for 3 of 4 residents (Resident #32, Resident #35, Resident #67, and Resident #90) and 5 of 6 staff (LVN A, LVN D, CNA D, CNA E, and CNA F) reviewed for infection control. 1. LVN A failed to follow facility policy and procedure for handwashing while providing wound care for Resident #32, during observations of wound on 05/05/2025 at 2:33 PM. 2. CNA D and CNA E failed to follow facility policy and procedure for handwashing while providing incontinent care for Resident #35, during observations of incontinent care on 05/05/2025 at 10:34 AM. 3. The facility failed to provide an enhanced barrier precautions sign for Resident #67 while having a wound. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the residents had the right to be informed of the risks, and participate in, his or her treatment which included the right to be informed in advance, by the physician or other practitioner or professional, of the risks and benefits of proposed care, of treatment and treatment alternatives or treatment options and to choose the alternative or option she preferred, for 1 of 30 residents (Residents #65) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to obtain a signed informed consent based on information of the benefits, risks, and options available for Residents #65) prior to administering psychotropic medications (a psychoactive drug taken to exert an effect on the chemical make-up of the brain and nervous system). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure all residents had the right to formulate advance directives for 3 of 30 residents (Residents #12, #23, and #45) reviewed for advanced directives. The facility failed to ensure Residents #12, #23, and #45 who were listed as DNR (Do Not Resuscitate), had an Out-of-Hospital Do Not Resuscitate (OOH-DNR) form that did not have missed required information on the OOH-DNR. These failures could place residents at risk for not having their end of life wishes honored and incomplete records.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure all residents had the right to personal privacy which included accommodations, medical treatment, written and telephone communications, personal care, visits, and meetings of family and resident groups for 3 of 3 residents (Resident #32, Resident #35, and Resident #90) reviewed for privacy. 1. LVN A failed to close the door, the curtain, the blinds, or provide a sheet or towel for coverage during wound care for Resident #32. 2. CNA D and CNA E did not close the door or close the curtain all of the way during incontinent care for Resident #35. 3. CNA F had provided peri care for Resident #90 and failed to close the blinds. This failure could place residents at risk of being exposed and cause residents to feel a loss of privacy, dignity, and decreased self-worth and self-esteem.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, 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 32 residents (Resident #96) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop an accurate, consistent, and completed care plan for Resident #96, specific to Resident #96 being placed in a secured/locked unit. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the care required to meet their individualized needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored properly for 2 of 4 medication carts (Sage medication cart and Oak medication cart), reviewed for medication storage. The medication cart assigned to Sage and Oak contained loose pills. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving prescribed medications as ordered and place the facility at risk of drug diversions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide food that was palatable, and at a safe, and appetizing temperature for 3 of 3 food forms (Regular, Mechanical Soft, and Pureed) for 1 of 1 meal reviewed for palatability. The facility failed to provide food that was palatable for 3 of 3 food forms served (Regular, Mechanical Soft, and Pureed) at 1 of 1 meal observed (05/05/2025 lunch). These failures could place residents at risk of decreased food intake, hunger, and unwanted weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure personal privacy was provided for 4 of 4 shower rooms reviewed dignity. 1. The staff failed to provide privacy for Resident #1 and Resident #2 during showers by not having a shower curtain up or the shower curtain that was too small that it did not close all the way and exposing the resident. The failure could place residents at risk for diminished quality of life and loss of dignity and self-worth.
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 for residents who consumed food orally from 1 of 1 facility kitchen reviewed for dietary services in that: The facility failed to ensure [NAME] A used good hygienic practices while serving ready to eat food. Food contact equipment was not washed, rinsed, and sanitized in a sanitary manner. These failures could place residents at risk of foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to prepare food in a form to meet individual needs in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for dietary services in that: The facility failed to ensure puree meat was prepared to a smooth uniform texture. This failure could place residents at risk for chocking.
Inspectors wroteBased on Interviews and record review, the facility failed to implement their written policies and procedures to prohibit and prevent abuse and neglect for 2 (Resident #1 and Resident #2) of 7 residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. A. The facility failed to report and investigate the allegation of verbal abuse that was alleged by Family Member C on 08/31/24 involving Resident #1 and CNA A. B. LVN F failed to immediacy report an allegation of verbal abuse. C. The facility failed to report and investigate the allegation of exploitation that was alleged by CNA B on an unknown date in September 2024 involving Resident #2 and CNA A. This failure could place residents at risk of reoccurring abuse and exploitation. Findings Included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents for 2 of 2 rooms Resident #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for safe environment, in that: 1. Resident #1 had a large number of mice droppings on the floor, including on the center of the floor by Resident #1's slippers, behind the recliner, and at the foot of the bed on the floor. 2. Resident #2 had mice droppings in his bedside table and a small number of mice droppings on the floor by the nightstand.
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 in 2 of 2 resident rooms (Resident #1 and Resident #2) located on Bluebonnet Hall observed for pest control. 1. The facility failed to ensure rooms #101 A and #110 A did not have an infestation of mice. These failures could place residents at risk for infections and illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews 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 personal and oral hygiene for 1 (Resident 1) of 10 residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's dentures were cleaned regularly. The failure was identified as past non-compliance as the facility had instituted adequate corrective measures to prevent reoccurrence of the non-compliance. This failure could place residents at risk of poor hygiene and grooming, bad breath, mouth sores and thereby decrease their quality of life. Findings Included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 6/13/24, revealed an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, but were not limited to: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public for 1 of 5 hallways (Hall 200) reviewed for safe environment, in that: The facility failed to ensure Hall 200 was free from pervasive foul odors. This failure could place residents at risk of a diminished quality of life and decline in self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to immediately inform the resident, consult with the resident's physician, and notify consistent with his or her authority, the resident representative when there was a change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status for 1 resident (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for notification of change of condition. The facility failed to notify Resident's #1 physicians, or representatives that Resident #1 had notified staff of feeling as if something was stuck in her throat, on 4/24/24. This failure could affect residents by causing their physician and representative to be unaware of changes in residents' condition.
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 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for dietary services. 1) The facility failed to ensure foods were processed, stored, and pureed under sanitary conditions. 2) The facility failed to ensure food contact surfaces were clean. 4) The facility failed to ensure staff stored personal items in a manner that prevented contamination. 5) The facility failed to protect foods from potential contamination. 6) The facility failed to ensure staff used good hygienic practices. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored properly in the cart for 1 (Mesquite Hall) of 4 medication carts (l) in that: 1. LVN A had an open medication cup with 5 medications belonging to Resident #21 that was supposed to have been administered to Resident #21 but was not. 2. LVN A had a loose medication belonging to Resident #57, identified as Xarelto 10 mg (a blood thinner). 3. LVN A had a loose medication belonging to Resident #99, identified as Gabapentin 100 mg (used for nerve pain and anticonvulsant). These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving prescribed medications as ordered and drug diversions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide food that was palatable, attractive and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 3 of 3 food forms (Regular, Mechanical Soft, and Pureed) for 1 of 1 meal reviewed for palatability. 1) The facility failed to provide food that was palatable, attractive and at appetizing temperatures for 3 of 3 food forms served (Regular, Mechanical Soft, and Pureed) at 1 of 1 meal observed (3/27/24 lunch). These failures could place residents at risk of decreased food intake, hunger, and unwanted weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, comfortable and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of diseases for 4 of 8 residents (Residents #48, #75, #92 and #99) and 4 of 6 (LVN A, LVN C, MA A and CNA A) staff reviewed for infection control in that: 1. LVN A failed to perform hand hygiene during medication administration for Resident #48. 2. MA A failed to perform hand hygiene during medication administration for Resident #75. 3. LVN C failed to perform hand hygiene between glove changes after performing wound care for Resident #92. 4. CNA A failed to perform hand hygiene between glove changes or use soap and water to wash hands when gloves became visibly soiled during incontinence care for Resident #99. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to respect the resident's right to personal privacy for 1 resident (Resident #81) reviewed for privacy issues in that: 1. MA A left the computer screen halfway up and unlocked with Resident #81's information on the screen when she walked away and left screen unattended. This failure could place residents at risk of having medical information exposed to others. This failure could cause residents to feel uncomfortable and disrespected. Findings Included: Record review of Resident #81's face sheet indicated Resident #81 was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE] with the following diagnoses: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were incontinent of bladder or had a urinary catheter received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible for 1 of 3 Residents (Resident #99) reviewed for incontinent care in that: CNA A failed to properly clean the buttocks area and wash hands between all glove changes while providing incontinent care to Resident #99. This failure had the potential to affect residents by placing them at an increased risk of exposure to communicable diseases and infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received, and the facility provided food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for 2 of 2 meals (3/26/24 - Lunch and Supper) observed for 5 of 5 residents with orders for puréed diets (Residents #36, 40, 63, 96 and 103). The facility failed to provide food that was in a form to meet resident needs for 2 of 2 meals observed (3/26/24 - Lunch and Supper) for 5 of 5 residents with orders for puréed diets (Resident #36, 40, 63, 96 and 103). This failure could place residents at risk of decreased food intake and choking.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for 1of 3 residents (R#1) reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to ensure R #1 was free of accident hazards, resulting in a fall on 09/14/23. This failure could lead to residents, who are at risk of falls, falling and sustaining an injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review; the facility failed to ensure residents remained free of any significant medication errors for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for medication errors (Resident #1). The facility failed to administer Resident #1's (R#1) medications 09/11/23 through 09/13/23. This failure could result in residents not receiving medications at the therapeutic level prescribed by their physician.
2 fire safety citations on file: 2 on June 4, 2026.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| February 23, 2026 | Fine | $11,782 |
| August 22, 2025 | Fine | $15,167 |
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) | 3.00 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.26 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.66 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.66 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.08 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 53.8% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.00 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 3.14 on weekdays and 2.66 on weekends, 15% 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 3.15 in April to June 2025 to 3.00 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 | 3.00 | 0.26 | 3.14 | 2.66 | 0.0% | 2 of 90 | 111 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.94 | 0.26 | 3.07 | 2.62 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 110 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.98 | 0.21 | 3.12 | 2.62 | 0.0% | 3 of 92 | 111 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.15 | 0.16 | 3.30 | 2.75 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 105 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Texas, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.33 | 0.40 | 3.50 | 2.93 | 2.2% | 0.7% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texas, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.03 | $16.97 to $20.71 | 88,680 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.92 | $27.46 to $32.89 | 57,560 |
| Registered nurses | $46.14 | $38.06 to $50.53 | 271,380 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Texas | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 28.7 | 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 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 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 | 15.1 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.8 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.8 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for The Mildred & Shirley L. Garrison Geriatric Educat's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (38.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
38.1% 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. 66 eligible stays.
9.3% 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. 96 eligible stays.
7.1% 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.
74.0% 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. 50 residents counted.
2.7% 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. 74 residents counted.
3.3% 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. 74 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. 11 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: BOOKER HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to The Ensign Group, a group of 344 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Booker Hospital District | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 01/01/2015 |
| McPherson, Michael | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/29/2018 | |
| Mewborn, Matthew | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| Burnam, Soon | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| Hoover, Shawn | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| Keetch, Chad | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2011 | |
| Hub City Healthcare Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2017 | |
| McPherson, Michael | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/29/2018 | |
| Mewborn, Matthew | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| Ensign Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/31/2014 | |
| Hub City Healthcare Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/20/2025 | |
| Knight Health Holdings LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2017 | |
| Standard Bearer Healthcare Op, LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2017 | |
| The Ensign Group Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2017 | |
| McPherson, Michael | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/29/2018 | |
| Mewborn, Matthew | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2017 |
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.