6621 Dan Danciger Rd, Fort Worth, TX 76133 · Tarrant County · (817) 292-6330
122 certified beds, about 81 residents a day · Government - Hospital district · Medicare and Medicaid since 1985
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 455572 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 23, 2026, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 39 health citations since September 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (3 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $31,778 in the last three years; the largest was $17,345, and the latest is dated January 31, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.45 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.55 of those hours.
56.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Ruby Healthcare, an affiliated group of 7 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 each resident bedside was adequately equipped to allow all residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system that would relay the call directly to a staff member or a centralized staff work area for 3 of 5 residents (Resident#43, Resident#79, Resident#92) reviewed for resident call system. The facility failed on 04/21/2026 to ensure the call light system was adequately equipped, the call light string was hanging down from the wall, away from the residents. This failure could place residents at risk of not having a means of directly contacting caregivers in an emergency or when they needed support for activities of daily living.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide the necessary services for residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for 7 residents (Resident #1, Resident #9, Resident #22, Resident #48, Resident #57, Resident #79, Resident #87) of 18 residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1, Resident #9, Resident #22, Resident #87 had their fingernails trimmed and cleaned on 04/28/2026. Resident #48, Resident #57, Resident #79 had their fingernails trimmed on 04/28/2026. These failures could place residents who were dependent on staff for ADL care at risk for loss of dignity, risk for infections, skin breakdown, and a decreased quality of life.1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for the facility's only kitchen observed for food service safety . The facility failed to ensure food items in the kitchen were appropriately covered on 04/21/2026. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk for food-borne illness and food contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 1 of 6 residents (Resident # 9) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 9 was assisted with eating in a dignified manner on 04/22/26, CNA I stood while feeding the resident. This failure could place residents at risk for decreased quality of life, quality of care, and self-esteem. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to label drugs and biologicals used in the facility in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable for 1 (100/200 hall nurses' cart) of 5 medication nurse cart reviewed for pharmacy services in that: The facility failed to ensure LVN F removed medications in unsecure containers from the 100/200 Hall nurses' cart This failure could affect residents resulting in diminished effectiveness, and not receiving the therapeutic benefits of the medications, and place residents at risk of not having the medication available due to possible drug diversion. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of infection for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #9) observed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure CNA E performed hand hygiene, and proper use of gloves, while providing incontinent care to Resident #9 on 04/22/2026. These failures could place residents at risk for development of infection. Record review of Resident #9's quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 03/11/26, reflected the Resident was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of muscles weakness. Resident#9 had a BIMS score of 00/15 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed bladder continence indwelling catheter, and bowel continence frequently incontinent. [...]
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 or 2 meals (06/18/25 lunch meal) reviewed for food meeting residents' needs. The facility failed to prepare and serve pureed rice pilaf as a pudding consistency for residents who required pureed diets during the lunch meal on 06/18/25. This deficient practice could affect residents and place them at risk of not receiving meals that meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records that were complete and accurate for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for clinical records. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's clinical record was complete and accurate when the resident experienced a change in condition on 02/02/25. LVN A did not accurately and completely document Resident #1's blood sugar monitoring, medication administration, and contact with the NP or EMS. These failures could place residents whose records are maintained by the facility at risk for delays and errors in their care and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who received nutrition by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #67) reviewed for enteral feeding. 1. RN G failed to contact the physician and obtain orders before using a de-clogger (a device designed to clear obstructed feeding tubes) to unclog Resident #67's g-tube (Gastrostomy tube, tube inserted through the belly that brings nutrition directly to the stomach) on [DATE]. The facility had de-clogger tools onsite, even though they did not train nurses on their use, and it was not an approved method for de-clogging a g-tube. 2. The facility failed to follow physician orders for Resident 67's enteral feeding tube to be flushed with 100 ml of water every 2 hours. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility with more than 120 beds, failed to employ a qualified social worker on a full-time basis for one of one Social Worker reviewed for qualifications. The facility, licensed for more than 120 beds, had not employed a full-time, qualified Social Worker since 09/26/24. This deficient practice could result in residents' social service needs not being met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assure full visual privacy for four (Residents #3, #46, #47, and #61) of twelve residents reviewed for privacy curtains. The facility failed to provide privacy curtains that assured each resident had full visual privacy. This failure could cause anxiety to residents during personal care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 1 of 5 residents (Residents #10) reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #10's fingernails were kept trimmed. These failures could place the residents at risk of infections or injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident with limited range of motion received appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and/or prevent further decrease in range of motion for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #25) reviewed for contracture management The facility failed to provide equipment/services for Resident #25's right hand contracture (a permanent tightening of the muscles). This failure could place residents at risk for a decline in range of motion, decreased mobility, worsening of contractures, and a decline in physical capabilities.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care, including tracheostomy care and tracheal suctioning, was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #67) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure there was a physician order for Resident #67's tracheostomy care, suction tubing, and emergency trach kit. This failure could place residents with a tracheostomy requiring tracheostomy care at risk for respiratory distress, hospitalizations, and a decline in their quality of life.
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 or 2 meals (lunch) reviewed for food meeting residents' needs. The facility failed to prepare and serve pureed mash potatoes as a pudding consistency for residents who required pureed diets during the lunch meal on 01/15/25. This deficient practice could affect residents and place them at risk of not receiving meals that meet their needs
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews 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 two resident (Residents #5 and #60) of five residents reviewed for infection control. MA D failed to sanitize a re-useable blood pressure cuff between uses on Resident #5 and Resident #60. This failure could place the residents at risk of exposure to infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for 4 of 5 rooms (Rooms 221, 225, 229, and 231) reviewed for environmental conditions. The facility failed to maintain Rooms 221, 225, 229, and 231 in a safe and sanitary condition. The failure placed residents at risk for infection and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living receives the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to provide Resident #1 assistance with timely incontinence care. This failure could place the residents at risk for decreased feelings of self-worth, skin breakdown, and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure, in accordance with State and Federal laws, all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments for 1 of 4 (Medication Cart 1) medication carts reviewed for storage of medication. The facility failed to ensure that medications were secured inside the medication cart on 100 halls on 04/30/24. This failure could place residents at risk of overdosing and drug diversions by staff and visitors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, which included both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for Care Plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's Care Plan was reviewed and updated quarterly, based on record reviews made on 04/30/24. This failure could place residents at risk of their needs not being met.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to establish and implement policies addressing resident admission to the facility for one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed for admissions. The facility failed to provide Resident #1 with an admission packet upon admission. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk for not being aware of what services the facility is providing.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure licensed nurses had the appropriate competencies and skills sets to provide nursing services to care for residents' needs and ensure resident safety, in accordance with professional standards of practice necessary for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for nursing competencies. The facility failed to ensure LVN C was competent in medication administration when LVN C failed to ensure Resident #1 was administered nitroglycerin (medication used to prevent or relieve chest pain caused by coronary artery disease by relaxing blood vessels), as ordered by the physician on 02/04/24. LVN C dispensed an entire bottle of nitroglycerin, which consisted of 25 (0.4 mg) tablets, to Resident #1 when the physician order was for 1 (0.4 mg) tablet resulting in Resident #1 being sent to the emergency room. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors for 1 of 5 residents (Resident # 1) reviewed for significant medication errors. On 02/04/24, LVN C failed to ensure Resident #1 was administered nitroglycerin (medication used to prevent or relieve chest pain caused by coronary artery disease by relaxing blood vessels), as ordered by the physician. LVN C dispensed an entire bottle of nitroglycerin, which consisted of 25 (0.4 mg) tablets to Resident #1, when the physician order was for 1 (0.4 mg) tablet. Resident #1 was transferred to the emergency room, his initial blood pressure at the ER was 86/42. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The IJ began on 02/04/24 and ended on 02/05/24. The facility corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that are complete and accurately documented for 2 of 4 residents (Residents #1 and #2) reviewed for accuracy of records. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's wound care was documented on the TAR for 01/13/24, 01/14/24, and 01/21/24. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's wound care was documented on the TAR for 01/15/24 and 01/29/24. This deficient practice could result in misinformation about professional care provided.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record reveiw, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided a safe, clean, and comfortable and homelike environment for 13 of 25 rooms (Rooms #120, 121, 123, 125, 127, 130, 131, 216, 219, 220, 221, 223, and 231) reviewed for homelike environment. 1. The facility failed to ensure Rooms #120, 121, 123, 125, 127, 130, and 131 were supplied with warm water to the resident's sinks. 2. The facility failed to ensure Rooms #216, 219, 220, 221, 223, and 231 were provided with clean air vents. These failures could place the residents at risk of discomfort from not having warm water to wash their hands.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, revealed the facility failed to refer all level II residents and all residents with new evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition for level II resident review upon a significant change in status assessment for 2 (Residents #20 and #68) of 5 residents reviewed for PASARR requirements. 1. The facility failed to refer Resident #20 who had a diagnosis of PTSD to the local authority. 2. The facility failed to refer Resident #68 who had a positive PASRR Level I to the local authority. These failures could place the residents at risk of not receiving possible specialized services available to them.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 3 of 8 residents (Residents #23, #40, and #53) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. 1. The DON failed to ensure Resident #23's care plan was updated to include her use of an indwelling catheter. 2. The Treatment Nurse failed to ensure Resident #40's care plan was updated to include his wound and wound care. 3. The Treatment Nurse failed to ensure Resident #53's care plan was updated to include his wounds and wound care. These failures could place the residents at risk of deterioration of their wounds and not receiving proper care with indwelling catheters.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who needed respiratory care were provided with such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 2 of 6 residents (Resident #75 and Resident #72) reviewed for respiratory care, in that: 1. The facility failed to date the oxygen tubing and humidifier bottle when not in use for Resident #75 as ordered by the physician. 2. The facility failed to ensure Residents #72 orders for oxygen administration were being accurately provided. This deficient practice placed residents that received oxygen therapy at risk for inadequate care and respiratory infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to ensure the facility was free of pests for 2 (North and South Stations) of 2 stations, 1 of 1 conference room and 1 of 1 dining room reviewed for pests. The facility failed to ensure an effective pest control program was implemented to prevent the presence of gnats throughout the facility. This failure could place residents at risk for foodborne illness and/or disease spread by pests.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident was treated with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 2 of 8 residents (Residents #23) reviewed for dignity. The facility failed to promote Resident #23's dignity by not covering her urinary catheter collection bag with a privacy bag. This failure could place residents with catheters at risk for a loss of dignity, decreased self-worth and decreased self-esteem.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, 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 1 of 5 residents (Resident #11) reviewed for call lights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #11's call light was accessible. This failure placed the resident 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 ensure at the time each resident was admitted , the facilty had a physician order for the resident's immediate care for 2 of 8 residents (Resident #23 and Resident #60) reviewed for residents receiving necessar care and services upon admission. 1. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #23 had a current order for use of indwelling catheter after readmission to the facility. 2. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #60 had a current order for dialysis after readmission to the facility. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the appropriate care as ordered by the physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the resident status for 1 of 12 residents (Resident #36) reviewed for MDS assessment accuracy. Resident #36's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] was coded incorrectly for dialysis treatment when she was not receiving dialysis treatment. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving care and services to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that pain management was provided to residents who require such services, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #10) reviewed for pain management. The facility failed to ensure Resident #10's pain control was maintained at a level acceptable to the resident. This failure could place the resident at risk of a decrease in quality of life due to pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to be adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relays the call directly to a centralized staff work area, for 2 of 83 residents (Residents #45 and #65) reviewed for call lights. The facility did not adequately equip Resident #45 and Resident #65 with a call light to allow residents to call for assistance. This failure could place residents who rely on the call light system to have a delayed response or no way contact staff to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of each resident's needs, for one Resident (Resident #1), of 12 residents reviewed for services and needs in that: The facility did not assist Resident #1 to get out of bed when multiple requests were made due to not having a wheelchair available for her. This failure could place all residents who are bedfast at risk of not having their needs and preferences met and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to have physician orders for the resident's immediate care for one (Resident #1) of twelve residents reviewed for admission physician orders. The facility failed to have complete and accurate admission physician order for Resident #1. This failure could affect all residents by placing them at risk for not receiving the appropriate care, medication, and treatment services.
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 one of four staff (CNA A) reviewed for infection control practices. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's door was closed while being on isolation for COVID-19. 2. CNA A failed to don proper PPE prior to entering Resident #1's room, who was on isolation for COVID-19. 3. CNA A failed to perform hand hygiene when passing out lunch trays for residents on the North Hall. These failures could place residents at risk of cross-contamination and infections such as COVID-19.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for one (Resident #2) of three residents reviewed for accidents. Hospitality Aide D failed to transfer Resident #2 with the assistance of another staff person during a Hoyer transfer. This failure could place residents at risk for serious injury or harm, decline in health, and decreased quality of life.
17 fire safety citations on file: 9 on April 23, 2026, 3 on January 31, 2025, 5 on December 20, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 31, 2025 | Fine | $17,345 |
| January 31, 2025 | Payment Denial | 2 days from March 5, 2025 |
| February 1, 2024 | Fine | $14,433 |
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) | 3.45 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.55 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.98 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.69 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.21 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 56.1% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 58.3% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.39 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 3.64 on weekdays and 2.98 on weekends, 18% 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 3.74 in April to June 2025 to 3.45 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 | 3.45 | 0.55 | 3.64 | 2.98 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 81 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.73 | 0.53 | 3.92 | 3.25 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 82 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.91 | 0.57 | 4.15 | 3.30 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 78 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.74 | 0.40 | 3.99 | 3.09 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 79 |
| 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. 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 | 4.3 | 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 | 0.7 | 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 | 9.0 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 32.6 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 34.0 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.0 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Wedgewood Nursing Home's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 9 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.
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. 21 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.
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. 9 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. 11 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. 27 residents counted.
2.2% 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. 27 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. 1 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: PALO PINTO COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Ruby Healthcare, a group of 7 nursing homes averaging 3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Palo Pinto County Hospital District | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 10/01/2014 | |
| Korkmas, Ross | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 08/06/2019 | |
| Korkmas, Ross | Corporate officer | Individual | 08/06/2019 | |
| Advanced Hcs LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 10/01/2014 | |
| Lichtschein, Teddy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2021 | |
| Meisner, Michael | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2021 | |
| Scheiner, Eliezer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2021 |
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.