2244 Brinker Road, Denton, TX 76208 · Denton County · (940) 289-3268
146 certified beds, about 116 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2003
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675995 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 17, 2025, inspectors cited 4 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 39 health citations since December 2022, 5 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (5 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $33,117 in the last three years; the largest was $18,801, and the latest is dated September 11, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.36 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.41 of those hours.
88.2% 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 39 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's right to secure and confidential medical records for seven (Residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7)) of 12 residents reviewed for resident rights. A. The facility failed to ensure MA A did not leave her computer tablet unattended, which displayed Resident #1's vital reports screen. B. The facility failed to ensure MA A did not leave Residents #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7's empty medication cards with their names, medications and dosages displayed on them, on top of an unattended medication cart on the 200 hall. These failures could place residents at risk of having their medical information disclosed to residents and visitors which could cause embarrassment, frustration, and feelings of decreased privacy, resulting in a decline in their health and psycho-social well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to report the results of all investigations to the administrator or his or her designated representative and to other officials in accordance with State law, including to the State Survey Agency, within 5 working days of the incident for one (Incident #1079379) of four incidents reviewed for reporting of alleged violations. The Administrator failed to report the results of an investigation within five working days to the State Survey Agency. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving timely and appropriate responses to alleged violations of abuse, neglect, and/or exploitation.
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's rights, that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for two (Resident #1 and Resident #2) of seven residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. 1.) The facility failed to ensure that Resident #1's comprehensive care plan identified nebulizer treatments as an intervention for respiratory care. 2.) The facility failed to ensure that Resident #2's comprehensive care plan identified oxygen therapy as an intervention for respiratory care. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving proper care and services due to inaccurate care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to establish and maintain respiratory care including oxygen services, including the safe handling, humidification, cleaning, storage, and dispensing of oxygen for two (Resident #1 and Resident #2) of seven residents reviewed for respiratory care. 1.) The facility failed to ensure that Resident #1's nebulizer mask and mouthpiece were bagged in a plastic bag. 2.) The facility failed to ensure that Resident #2's oxygen tubing/nasal cannula were bagged in a plastic bag. These failures could place residents receiving respiratory therapy at risk of health-associated infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors for one (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received the correct dosage of levetiracetam (Keppra, and anti-epileptic drug/seizure medication) from 10/09/2025 to 11/26/2025. This failure could place residents at risk of medical complications not receiving the therapeutic effects of their medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that each resident received adequate supervision and assistance to prevent accidents for one of thirteen residents (Resident #12) reviewed for accidents and hazards. The facility failed to ensure Resident #12 received the appropriate supervision to prevent elopement from the facility on 6/23/2025 and 07/13/2025. The non-compliance was identified as PNC on 09/11/25 and the IJ template was provided the facility on 09/11/25 at 3:10 PM. The noncompliance began on 07/13/2025 and ended 07/13/2025. The facility corrected the non-compliance before the survey began. These failures could place the residents at risk of serious harm, injury and death from wandering outside the facility in unfamiliar surroundings. .
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to implement services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for ten (Resident # 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) reviewed for care plans Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to implement services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for ten (Resident # 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) reviewed for care plans The facility failed to ensure Resident #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 were properly supervised while smoking in the smoking area of the facility. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents, who needed respiratory care, were provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for one of three residents (Resident #11) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure Resident 11's oxygen mask was properly stored in a bag when not in use on 09/11/25. This failure could place the residents at risk for respiratory infection and not having their respiratory needs met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible and each resident received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for three of three residents (Residents #7, #26, and #198) reviewed for accidents and hazards. The facility failed to properly maintain wheelchair armrests for Residents #7, #26, and #198 These failures could place residents at risk for equipment that is in unsafe operating condition, which could cause injury.
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 the facility's only kitchen reviewed for food safety. 1. The facility failed to ensure dented cans were placed in a separate storage area. 2. The facility failed to ensure food items were discarded by the use by date. These failures could place residents at risk for food-borne illness and cross contamination. Findings Include: Observation of the refrigerator on 04/15/2025 at 9:47am revealed the following: -3 1-gallon milk with a use by date 04/08/2025. Observation of the dry storage on 4/15/2025 at 9:55am revealed the following: -1 6lb 10oz can of spaghetti sauce dated 12/30/2024 was dented on top right and top left. -1 6lb can of mushrooms dated 10/29/2024 was dented on front bottom and front left. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident has the right to privacy to be treated with respect, personal body privacy, and dignity during wound care for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #15) reviewed for respect, privacy and dignity in that: Each resident has the right to privacy and confidentiality for all aspects of care and services. A nursing home resident has the right to personal privacy of not only his or her own physical body, but of his or her personal space, including accommodations and personal care. The facility failed to ensure Treatment Nurse A provided privacy when providing Resident #15 with wound care. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure each resident was treated with a clean comfortable environment during care, to include clean linens to support their quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for 1 (Resident #15) of 4 residents. The facility failed to ensure Resident #15 was treated with respect, dignity, and care when they failed to ensure Resident #15's linens were clean and the soiled protective boots were removed from the room. This failure could place residents at risk for diminished quality of life, loss of dignity and self-worth, psychosocial harm and distrust with staff. Findings Included: Record review of Resident #15's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents received care and treatment consistent with professional standards of practice to promote healing and to prevent further development of skin breakdown or pressure ulcers for two (Resident #13 and Resident #87) of four residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #13 was provided with ordered wound care on 12/6/2024, 12/15/2024, 12/16/2024, 12/30/2024, 1/01/2025, 1/03/2025, 1/06/2025, 1/10/2025, 1/13/2025, 1/17/2025, and 2/06/2025 (11 days). 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #88) reviewed for respect and dignity. The facility staff failed to honor Resident #88 ' s request to stay in bed, put on her slippers, and eat breakfast in the dining area instead of staying in bed and eating in her room. The past noncompliance began on 12/16/24 and ended on 12/18/24. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. This failure could place residents at risk of diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that the comprehensive person-centered care plan was revised to include the services to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical well-being as identified in the comprehensive assessment for two (Resident #13 and Resident #22) of five residents reviewed for care plans. 1. The facility failed to revise Resident #13's care plan to address his diagnosis of dehydration and use of intravenous fluids. 2. The facility failed to revise Resident #22's care plan to address her need for a mechanically altered diet and diagnosis of dysphagia. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving the services needed to attain or maintain their highest practicable physical well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents received adequate supervision to prevent incidents and accidents for one resident (Resident #13) of four residents reviewed for possible accident hazards and incidents. The facility failed to provide adequate supervision for Resident #13 on 10/31/2024 after she was placed on one-to-one monitoring. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance (PNC) on 10/31/2024 at 7:05 p.m. The facility had corrected the noncompliance on 10/31/2024 immediately following the incident before the state's investigation began. This failure could place residents at risk for possible resident-to-resident altercations and injuries due to lack of supervision.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for 2 (Residents #11 and #49) of 7 residents reviewed for quality of care. 1. LVN D failed to order xrays for Resident #11 after she fell on [DATE] and complained of right-side pain. The xrays were not completed until the next day 12/17/23 the resident was diagnosed with fractures of the 8th to 10th ribs. 2. The facility failed to assess and document Resident #49's injury to her right ankle on 01/23/24, when therapy heard an audible sound when he attempted to put her shoe back on. On 01/24/24 it was noticed by staff that Resident #49 had swelling and bruising to her right ankle. Resident #49 was diagnosed with a right ankle fracture and underwent surgery. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide radiology or other diagnostic services to meet the needs of its residents in a timely manner for 2 (Resident #11 and #49) of 7 residents reviewed for radiology services. 1. LVN D failed to order xrays for Resident #11 after she fell on [DATE] and complained of right-side pain. The xrays were not completed until the next day 12/17/23 and the resident was diagnosed with fractures of the 8th to 10th ribs. 2. The facility failed to obtain timely radiology services on 01/23/24, after the Physical Therapist reported to the nurse that Resident #49 had an audible sound to her right ankle and was noted to be in an unusual position. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for one (400 Hall medication cart) of four medication carts and stored securely for 1 (Resident #338) of 22 residents reviewed for labeling and storage. 1. The facility failed to ensure insulin pens that were expired were removed from the 400-hall cart. 2. Resident #338 had a tube of Cortisone cream found on a shelf near the window sill, 1 bottle of Visine and a tube of Icy Hot stored at the resident's bedside table not locked in a lock box or secured in the medication cart or medication room. These failures placed residents at risk of receiving medications that were ineffective. due to having expired insulin vial on the cart.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to provide for the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents for one (Resident #83) of five residents reviewed for call lights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #83's call light was accessible. This failure could place the residents at risk of falling, further injury, and unnecessary pain from not being able to call for help.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately consult with the resident's physician when there was a change in the resident's condition or a need to alter treatment for one (Resident #62) of three residents reviewed for physician consultation. The facility failed to ensure LVN E consulted with and notified Resident #62's physician when he was expressing pain to his catheter site, had dark urine, and sediment to his catheter tubing. The failure placed residents at risk for delayed physician intervention.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure individuals with mental disorders were evaluated and received care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #17) reviewed for PASRR Level 1 screenings. The facility did not correctly identify Resident #17 as having a mental illness and did not complete a new PASRR Level One Screening. This failure could place residents at risk of not being evaluated for PASRR services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet residents medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs for 2 (Resident #48 and #60) of 18 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop a care plan with measurable objectives and timeframes to address Resident #48's [NAME] hose (stockings) and Resident #60's hospice. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving inadequate interventions not individualized to their care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services, based on the comprehensive assessment, to prevent urinary tract infections for one (Resident #62) of three residents reviewed for urinary catheters. The facility failed to contact the physician when Resident #62 began to complain of pain to the site of his catheter. This failure could affect residents with catheters by placing them at risk for the development and/or worsening of urinary tract infections.
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 on one of four medication carts (hall 600 nurses' cart) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure the hall 600 nurses medication cart contained accurate narcotic record for Residents #77. This failure could place residents at risk for drug diversion and delay in medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observations and record review, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident that were complete and accurately documented for 4 (Residents #1, #2, #3 and #4) of eight residents reviewed for administration. 1. The facility failed to ensure Residents #1 ,#2, #3 and #4 had physician orders for contact isolation due to their COVID 19 diagnoses in their medical records. 2. The facility failed to ensure Residents #1, #2, #3 and #4's medical records were updated to include their COVID 19 diagnoses. 3. The facility failed to have acute Care plans for Residents #2 and #4 in their Medical records. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for one (Station #2) of two nurses stations and one Resident's room (#512) of four resident's rooms and one (Front entrance area) of one front entrance area reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure CNA G wore an N95 facemask when she walked from the 500 hall, where COVID 19 residents' rooms were. The facility failed to ensure LVN E wore an N95 facemask appropriately while she was standing at the 500 hall nurses station #2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observations and interviews, the interdisciplinary team failed to review and revise after each COVID 19 Change of Condition assessment two (Residents #2 and #4) of eight residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to follow their protocol to update Residents #2 and #4's Care Plans to include acute COVID care plans due to Contact Isolation Precautions for COVID 19. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving individualized care for their medical conditions, which could cause an increase in spreading infectious diseases and result in the resident's decline in health, mental status, and psycho-social well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately consult with the resident's physician when there was a significant change in the resident's physical status and a need to alter treatment significantly for 2 (Resident #32 and #29) of 8 residents reviewed for physician notification. The facility failed to ensure: 1. LVN B immediately notified Resident #32's physician when Resident #32, who did not have a history of shortness of breath complaints, complained of not being able to breathe and requested two breathing treatments the night of 11/28/22. Resident #32 was discovered on 11/29/22 unresponsive and not breathing. CPR was preformed but she was pronounced dead at the facility on 11/29/22. 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and records reviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for 2 (Resident #32 and Resident #29) of 8 residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Resident #32 was appropriately assessed, monitored, and care plans were followed when Resident #32, who did not have a history of shortness of breath complaints, complained of not being able to breathe and requested two breathing treatments the night of 11/28/22. Resident #32 was discovered on 11/29/22 unresponsive and not breathing. CPR was preformed but she was pronounced dead at the facility on 11/29/22. 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents in 2 of 20 resident rooms (#408 and #411) and Halls 400 and 500 reviewed for environment. The facility failed to repair the broken bathroom floor tiles in room [ROOM NUMBER], and failed to ensure Rooms #408, #411, Hall 400, and Hall 500 were maintained for sanitary and safe conditions. These failures could place residents at risk for an unsafe environment and a reduced quality of life, due to unsanitary living conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure personnel maintained current CPR certification for Healthcare Providers through a CPR provider whose training included hands-on practice and in-person skills assessment for 4 of 8 staff members (the DON, ADON F, LVN B, and LVN D) reviewed for basic life support in that: The DON, ADON F, LVN B and LVN D's CPR certifications were obtained from an on-line course and LVN B did not complete a Healthcare Provider CPR course. This deficient practice could affect all residents who requested a full code status at risk of not receiving necessary life-saving measures.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews the facility failed to ensure medications were secure and inaccessible to unauthorized staff and residents for one (300 Hall medication cart) of two medication carts. The facility failed to ensure the 300 Hall medication cart was locked when unattended. These failures placed the residents at risk for drug diversion, drug overdose, and accidental administration of medications to the wrong resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and interview the facility failed to prepare, store, distribute, and serve foods in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the facility's only kitchen reviewed for labeling and storage of food inventory. 1. The facility failed to store food in the dry pantry, freezer, and refrigerator off the floor. 2. The facility failed to cover water drains in the facility's only kitchen in 2 locations. These failures could place residents at risk of contamination and acquiring a food-borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure they coordinated with the appropriate, State-designated authority, to ensure that individuals with a newly diagnosed mental disorder received care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs 1 (Resident #59) of 5 residents reviewed for PASSR. The facility failed to complete and submit an accurate PASSR Level 1 for Resident #59 when he was newly diagnosed with a mental illness. This failure could place residents who had a positive PASRR Level 1 or residents with a diagnosis of mental illness at risk for not receiving care and services to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents receive proper treatment and care to maintain good foot health for 1 (Resident #89) of 5 residents reviewed for foot care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #89 received foot care and treatment and failed to assist the resident in making and appointment with the podiatrist. These failures placed all residents at risk for not receiving foot care which is consistent with professional standards of practice.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed ensure that a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for 2 (Resident #58 and #77) of 2 residents reviewed for catheter care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #58 had a physician's order for a Foley catheter. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #77's Foley drainage tubing was placed below the level of the bladder. This failure could place residents who had incontinence at risk for urinary tract infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents who needed respiratory care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #29 and #41) reviewed for respiratory care in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #29's and 41's oxygen concentrators had an air filter in place and remained free of significant accumulation of grey solid particulates. These deficient practices could affect residents who received oxygen therapy and could result in residents receiving incorrect or inadequate oxygen support and could result in a decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that met his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs, taking into consideration the preferences of each resident, for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #8) whose diets were reviewed. The facility failed to provide Resident #8 an appropriate cereal substitution which took into consideration her diagnosis of diabetes and did not provide her bacon per her preference. This failure could place residents on a therapeutic diet at risk for, poor intake, weight loss and not having their nutritional needs met.
15 fire safety citations on file: 6 on April 17, 2025, 6 on February 28, 2024, 3 on December 2, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| September 11, 2025 | Fine | $14,316 |
| February 28, 2024 | Fine | $18,801 |
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) | 3.36 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.98 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.01 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.93 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 88.2% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 80.0% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 4 |
CMS expects 3.87 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 3.51 on weekdays and 2.98 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 3.31 in April to June 2025 to 3.36 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 | 3.36 | 0.41 | 3.51 | 2.98 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 116 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.13 | 0.52 | 3.25 | 2.82 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 110 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.31 | 0.55 | 3.48 | 2.88 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 104 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.31 | 0.43 | 3.53 | 2.74 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 101 |
| 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 | 47.2 | 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 | 0.3 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 32.9 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.0 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.5 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 30.3 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.9 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.7 | 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 Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (52.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
52.5% 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. 49 eligible stays.
12.6% 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. 75 eligible stays.
9.1% 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. 41 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Texas57.3% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 19 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. 37 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. 37 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. 2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Huggins, Linda | Corporate director | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Mak, David | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/17/2021 | |
| Denton II Enterprises LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Blake, Gary | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Blake, Malisa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2023 |
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.