4511 Coronado Ave, Wichita Falls, TX 76310 · Wichita County · (940) 692-8001
98 certified beds, about 90 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1991
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 455916 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 19, 2025, inspectors cited 4 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
None of its 23 health citations since April 2023 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 2.97 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.48 of those hours.
86.9% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Creative Solutions in Healthcare, an affiliated group of 149 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 23 health citations on file.
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 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food and nutrition services. 1. The facility failed to ensure that spoiled food items were disposed of properly. 2. The facility failed to ensure foods were labeled properly. These failures could place residents at risk for food borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed for 1 of 18 residents (Resident #10) reviewed for food and nutrition services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #10 received items listed on his lunch meal ticket on 6/05/2025. This failure could place residents at risk of poor intake, chemical imbalance, and/or weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident received food that is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 2 of 18 residents (Resident #10 and Resident #26) reviewed for nutritive value, flavor, and appearance. The facility failed to provide palatable food served that was palatable and attractive to Residents #10 and Resident #26 for the lunch meal on 06/16/2025. This failure could affect the residents by placing them at risk of poor food intake and/or dissatisfaction of the meals served.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #15) reviewed for meals. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #15 was served pureed vegetables that were the proper texture. This deficient practice could affect residents by placing them at risk for choking and 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 one of one kitchen reviewed for nutrition services. 1. The facility failed to ensure opened food were sealed in the nonperishable food storage room. 2. The facility failed to ensure temperature logs were kept for the refrigerator and freezer. 3. The facility failed to ensure the refrigerator had an internal thermometer. 4. The facility failed to ensure dishwashing logs were kept. 5. The facility failed to ensure staff followed proper hygiene during food prep and distribution. These failures could place residents at risk for decline in nutritional health status and foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for 3 of 7 residents (Residents #5, #15 and #50) reviewed for accuracy of assessments. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 5's MDS accurately reflected the resident's weight gain. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 15's MDS accurately reflected her weight loss or that she received hemo dialysis 3 times a week. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #50's MDS accurately reflected her weight loss. These failures could place residents at risk for not receiving care and services to meet their physical needs and promote feelings of well-being and quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care, was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals and preferences for 2 of 2 residents (Residents #19 and #183) reviewed for respiratory care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Residents #19 and #183's oxygen tubing was changed weekly. 2. The facility failed to ensure Residents #19 and #183's nasal cannula and nebulizer were kept in a bag while not in use. These failures could place residents at risk for infections and transmission of communicable diseases.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record reviews , the facility failed to provide food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for one of one meal reviewed for palatable meals and preferred temperatures. The facility failed to ensure that the food was appetizing temperature, flavor, and texture. The deficient practice could affect the residents who received their meals from the kitchen by contributing to poor intake of nutrition, weight loss, and illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to provide advance notice of change in services and charges not covered under Medicare for 1 of 3 residents (Residents #45) reviewed for Medicaid and Medicare Coverage Liability Notices. The facility failed to ensure Resident #45's representative was given a Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNF ABN Form CMS-10055) when he was discharged from skilled services. This failure could place residents and their representatives at risk of not being fully informed about services covered by Medicare.
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 3 residents (Resident #60) reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure CNA A washed or sanitized her hands before feeding Resident #60. 2. The facility failed to ensure CNA A did not make contact with her own face, hair, and other objects while feeding Resident #60. These failures could place residents at risk of infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility established and maintained 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 one (Resident #1) of two residents reviewed for infection control practices. CNA C and CNA D failed to perform hand hygiene and change their gloves at the appropriate times while providing incontinence care for Resident #1. These failures placed residents at risk for the spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive assessment within 14 days after a significant change in the physical condition for 1 of 4 residents (Residents #1) whose records were reviewed for assessments. The facility failed to recognize and re-assess Resident #1 after an improvement in mood, significant weight gain, and an improvement in ADL function. This failure placed residents at risk for not developing interventions to meet their needs for care assistance and treatments.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately assess each resident's status for 1 of 5 (Resident #1) reviewed for assessment accuracy in that: Resident #1's Quarterly MDS assessment records, was not coded yes for weight gain of 5% or more in the last month or gain of 10% or more in last 6 months. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the proper care and services due to inaccurate assessment records.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were secured on 1 of 2 medication carts reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility did not ensure medications carts were secured and locked. This failure could place the residents at risk of gaining access to unlocked medications not prescribed to them.
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 to help prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection for 2 staff (CNA A, CNA B) of 5 staff reviewed for infection control, in that: 1. CNA A entered a COVID-19 Red Zone (COVID positive zone) room, without eye protection (face shield or goggles) on and proceeded to care for and speak with a resident that was unmasked, while the resident's door was open. 2. CNA B entered a COVID-19 Red Zone (COVID positive zone) room, without eye protection (face shield or goggles), a gown, or a N95 mask or respirator and proceeded to clean the COVID positive room. These failures could place residents at risk for contamination and infection.
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, in that: 1. The dietary staff did not operate the low temperature dish machine and check the chlorine sanitizer content to ensure it was operating correctly to clean and sanitize the dishes consistently each meal. 2. Dietary Aide C did not use disposable gloves while handling soiled dishes and did not wash or sanitize his hands before handling the clean dishes. 3. Food items in the non-perishable food storage areas were not stored in sealed containers or resealable storage bags after the manufacturer's package seal was opened. 4. Floors were soiled throughout the kitchen food preparation area. 5. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the maintenance of mechanical and electrical equipment in safe operating condition in 1 of 1 kitchen, in that: One of two reach-in freezers was not maintained at an interior temperature of zero degrees or below and food stored in the freezer was not frozen solid. This failure placed the residents at risk for foodborne illness from being served food that had not been stored at the proper temperature.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to notify the state mental health authority promptly for resident review after a significant change in mental condition for two residents (Residents #21 and #55) with the PASRR screening and resident review (PASRR) program, of resident assessments reviewed for PASRR evaluations. The facility did not update the PASRR Level 1 forms for Resident #21 and Resident #55. This failure placed the residents at risk for not being evaluated for psychiatric conditions and not receiving needed PASRR specialized services for which they may be eligible.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive assessment within 14 days after a significant change in the physical condition for 1 of 4 residents (Residents #39) whose records were reviewed for assessments. 1) The facility failed to recognize and assess Resident #39's weight loss, IV medications while in the facility, decline in ADL's and a decline in Bowel and Bladder function. This failure placed residents at risk for not being assessed for a change in condition and the need to revise their care plans to address changes in condition and develop interventions to meet their needs for care assistance and treatments.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program (PASRR) were conducted for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #56) reviewed for PASRR evaluations. The facility failed to complete a Level II PASRR Evaluation for Resident #56. This failure could affect the residents with a diagnosis of mental illness and could result in these residents not receiving needed services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement care plans for necessary treatments and conditions for one of four residents (Resident #21) reviewed for Comprehensive Care Plans. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving care that is thoughtful, planned, and relevant to their condition(s) which could lead to complications in resident health and quality of life and care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 2 residents (Residents #219) reviewed for oxygen in that: Resident #219 did not have physician's orders for oxygen administration. This deficient practice could affect 8 residents who received respiratory treatments and could result in residents receiving incorrect or inadequate oxygen support and could result in a decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to post the daily nurse staffing information with the current date, resident census, and numbers of staff actual hours worked at the beginning of each shift in a place readily accessible to residents and visitors, in that: 1. The facility failed to update and post the daily nurse staffing information on 4/02/23. 2. The nursing staff on duty on 4/02/2023 did not know the current resident census. This failure could affect residents, their families, and facility visitors by placing them at risk of not having access to information regarding staffing data and facility census.
22 fire safety citations on file: 6 on June 19, 2025, 6 on May 17, 2024, 10 on April 4, 2023.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
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) | 2.97 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.48 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.61 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.75 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.74 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 86.9% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 90.0% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.01 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 3.12 on weekdays and 2.61 on weekends, 16% 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 3.14 in April to June 2025 to 2.97 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 | 2.97 | 0.48 | 3.12 | 2.61 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 90 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.94 | 0.46 | 3.12 | 2.48 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 92 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.10 | 0.43 | 3.29 | 2.65 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 90 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.14 | 0.35 | 3.31 | 2.71 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 90 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Texas, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.33 | 0.40 | 3.50 | 2.93 | 2.2% | 0.7% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Trains nurse aides: this home runs a state-approved CNA program (state list: HHSC Approved NATCEP Providers, as of October 6, 2026). A nursing home cannot charge aides it employs, or has offered a job, for state-approved training (42 CFR 483.152(c)). See University Park CNA training on CareerFunded, our sister site for career training.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texas, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.03 | $16.97 to $20.71 | 88,680 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.92 | $27.46 to $32.89 | 57,560 |
| Registered nurses | $46.14 | $38.06 to $50.53 | 271,380 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Texas | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 31.4 | 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 | 3.4 | 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 | 20.0 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.1 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.1 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.0 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.6 | 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 | 1.1 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for University Park 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 (36.0% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
36.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Texas: 116 better, 50 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 38 eligible stays.
10.3% 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. 44 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. 27 eligible stays.
45.5% 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. 22 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. 38 residents counted.
2.1% 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. 38 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. 8 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: WEST WHARTON COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Creative Solutions in Healthcare, a group of 149 nursing homes averaging 2.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| West Wharton County Hospital District | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 07/01/2023 |
| Huggins, Linda | Corporate director | Individual | 07/01/2023 | |
| Mak, David | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/17/2021 | |
| Wichita Falls I Enterprises, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 07/01/2023 | |
| Blake, Gary | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2023 | |
| Blake, Malisa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2023 |
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.