5502 4th Street, Lubbock, TX 79416 · Lubbock County · (806) 793-1111
114 certified beds, about 76 residents a day · Government - Hospital district · Medicare and Medicaid since 1995
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675527 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 23, 2026, inspectors cited 3 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 32 health citations since September 2023, 6 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (6 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $19,546 in the last three years; the largest was $10,546, and the latest is dated August 15, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.39 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.33 of those hours.
95.6% 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 32 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop an accurate, consistent, and completed care plan for Resident #1, specific to Resident #1's dietary needs ordered by the physician. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the care required to meet their individualized needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident was offered a therapeutic diet when there was a nutritional problem and the health care provider ordered a therapeutic diet for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for therapeutic diets. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was given supplemental shakes at every meal (three times a day) as ordered by the physician. This failure could place residents at risk for poor intake, weight loss, unmet nutritional needs, and a loss of dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for dietary services. The facility failed to ensure the dishwasher was working properly with the hot water temperature and the facility failed to allow the food processor for puree to air-dry completely before using. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain and ensure safe and sanitary storage of residents' food items for 1 of 1 Resident's personal refrigerators reviewed for food safety (Resident #66) in that: The facility did not have a system in place to assist residents in cleaning and maintaining their personal refrigerators to ensure safe food handling and prevent consumption of spoiled and/or expired foods. The personal refrigerator in Resident #66's room did not contain a thermometer. The refrigerator contained an unknown substance that was unlabeled and undated. Resident #66 was unable to identify an unlabeled and undated unknown substance in the personal refrigerator. These failures could place residents at risk for food borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 Residents (Resident #6) reviewed for hospice care: The facility failed to ensure Resident #6 had a physician's order for hospice care. This failure could result in residents not receiving care without a physician's order.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents had the right to be free from verbal abuse and neglect for 2 (Resident #1 and #2) of 7 residents reviewed for abuse. The facility staff failed to protect Resident #1 from verbal abuse from Resident #2 on 7/11/25 between 7:00 PM and 7:30 PM.The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The IJ began on 07/11/25 and ended on 7/25/25. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could place residents at risk of abuse, neglect, trauma, injury and psychosocial harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to implement written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse and neglect for 2 of 7 residents (Resident #1, and #2) reviewed for abuse. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours if the alleged violation involved abuse or neglect and resulted in bodily injury, to other officials (including the State Agency) and the Abuse Coordinator for 2 of 7 residents (Resident #1, and #2) reviewed for abuse. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to prevent further potential abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment for 2 of 7 residents (Resident #1, #2) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to immediately implement protective measures to protect Resident #1 from Resident #2 after a verbal abuse incident occurred on 7/11/25 between 7:00 PM and 7:30 PM.The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The IJ began on 07/11/25 and ended on 7/14/25. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. These failures could place residents as risk for further abuse to include emotional and physical. Findings Included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately notify with the responsible party of an incident involving the resident which had the potential for requiring physician intervention for 2 (Resident #1 & Resident #2) of 7 residents reviewed for notification of change. The facility failed to immediately notify Resident #1's responsible party when Resident #2 verbally abused Resident #1 on 7/11/25 between 7:00 PM and 7:30 PM. This failure could place residents responsible party at the risk of not being aware/informed of residents' conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that 1 of 8 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care was offered a therapeutic diet when there is a nutritional problem, and the health care provider ordered a therapeutic diet. On 6/27/25 the facility did not ensure Resident #1 received her physician ordered NPO diet Enteral Feed diet (a method of providing nutrition directly into the gastrointestinal tract) when CNA provided Resident #1 with a plate of puree food (chili dog on a bun, sauerkraut, tater tots, diced onions, assorted gelatin; pureed). An IJ was identified on 07/02/25 at 2:50 PM. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 2:50 PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to implement written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse and neglect for 2 of 10 residents (Resident #1, and #2) reviewed for abuse. The ADM (Abuse Preventionist) and the DON failed to follow the facility's abuse policy by not reporting the allegation of abuse to HHSC regarding the Resident-to-Resident inappropriate sexual activity between residents (Resident #1 kissed Resident #2) that occurred on an unknown date. The ADM (Abuse Preventionist) and the DON failed to follow the facility's abuse policy by not notifying the family representative regarding the Resident-to-Resident inappropriate sexual activity between residents (Resident #1 kissed Resident #2) that occurred on an unknown date. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours if the alleged violation involved abuse or neglect and resulted in bodily injury, to other officials (including the State Agency) and the administrator of the facility for 2 of 10 residents (Resident #1 and #2) reviewed for reporting abuse, in that: The ADM (Abuse Preventionist) and the DON failed to follow the facility's abuse policy by not reporting the allegation of abuse to HHSC regarding the Resident-to-Resident inappropriate sexual activity between residents (Resident #1 kissed Resident #2) that occurred on an unknown date. These failures could place residents as risk for abuse and neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to have evidence all allegations of abuse, neglect or mistreatment were thoroughly investigated for 2 of 10 residents (Resident #1, and #2) reviewed for abuse. The ADM (Abuse Preventionist) and the DON failed to follow the facility's abuse policy by not conducting a thorough investigation and documenting regarding the Resident-to-Resident inappropriate sexual activity between residents (Resident #1 kissed Resident #2) that occurred on an unknown date. These failures could place residents as risk for abuse and neglect by not investigating allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for elopement. The facility failed to supervise Resident #4 while he was outside smoking. When the gate opened on 12/05/2024, Resident #4 was able to exit through the gate and leave the grounds. An Immediate Jeopardy situation was determined to have existed on 12/05/2024. It was determined to be past non-compliance due to the facility having implemented actions that corrected the non-compliance on 12/05/2024 before the beginning of the survey. This failure could place residents at risk for serious injury, harm, impairment, or death.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure each resident was treated with respect, dignity, and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes the maintenance or enhancement of their quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality and the facility failed to protect and promote the rights of the resident for 4 of 21 residents (Resident #9, Resident #26, Resident #41, and Resident #231) reviewed for resident rights in that: 1. CNA H failed to knock on the door prior to entering Resident #41's room during wound care. 2. CNA I failed to provide full privacy while providing peri care for Resident #9 3. CNA E and CNA F failed to provide full privacy while providing peri care for Resident #231. 4. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were offered sufficient fluid intake to maintain proper hydration and health for 5 of 12 residents (Resident # 26, Resident #49, Resident #53, Resident #67, Resident #231) reviewed for hydration. The facility failed to ensure Resident #26, Resident #49, Resident #53, Resident #67, and Resident #231 received adequate fluid intake on 11/5/24, 11/6/24, and 11/7/24. This failure could place residents at risk for dehydration, decline in health, organ problems, seizures, and failure to thrive.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for dietary services. 1) The facility failed to keep food properly sealed in the refrigerator. 2) The facility failed to properly store bowls, plates and pans in the kitchen area. 3) The facility failed to keep the microwave handles and buttons and the deep fryer clean and ready for use. 4) The facility failed to store Liquid Steel [NAME] (cleaning solution) separately from where food is stored. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program, designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 2 Residents observed for infection control practices (Resident #9, and Resident #231) in that: 1. CNA I failed to use proper hand washing techniques before and after assisting with resident during peri care for Resident #9. CNA I washed her hands for 15 seconds and 17 seconds with soap and friction before rinsing. CNA I used the same paper towel to dry hands to turn off faucet. 2. CNA E and CNA I failed to wash hands prior to gathering peri care supplies. 3. CNA F and CNA E failed to use proper hand washing techniques before, during, and after assisting with Resident #231's peri care. 4. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to assist the resident in making appointments to ensure residents receive proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain hearing abilities for one of one resident (Resident #47) reviewed for hearing devices. The facility failed to assist Resident #47 in locating missing hearing aids, and did not make an appointment to replace them, leaving Resident #47 to struggle to hear causing Resident #47 to become frustrated and depressed. Staff did not know that Resident #47 had hearing aids and were not assisting him with aids to hear. This failure could place residents at risk for limited social interactions and a decline in hearing.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident consistent with the resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental, and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment, for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) The facility failed to complete a comprehensive care plan for Resident #1's need for nail care. The deficient practice could place residents at risk of not receiving proper care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received proper treatment and care to maintain mobility and good foot health for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for foot care. The facility failed to ensure Resident 1 toenails were trimmed. The deficient practice placed residents at risk of discomfort, poor foot hygiene, and a decline in resident's physical condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to employ sufficient staff with appropriate competencies and skill sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service for the facility's only kitchen reviewed for dietary services. The facility failed to ensure the designated Dietary Manager completed the required dietary managers certification course or had any other qualifying credentials. This failure could place residents at risk for the spread of foodborne illness and residents not having their nutritional needs met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for dietary services, in that: The facility failed to ensure to date and label all food (DM). [...]
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 1 of 1 kitchen and 2 of 32 resident rooms (Kitchen Food Preparation area, room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER]). The facility failed to ensure room [ROOM NUMBER] and the Kitchen Food Preparation area were free from flies. This failure could place residents at risk for the potential spread of infection, cross-contamination, and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the residents had the right to be informed of the risks, and participate in, his or her treatment which included the right to be informed in advance, by the physician or other practitioner or professional, of the risks and benefits of proposed care, of treatment and treatment alternatives or treatment options and to choose the alternative or option he or she preferred, for 6 of 21 residents (Residents #6, #25, #33, #37 ') reviewed for resident rights . 1. The facility failed to obtain a signed informed consent based on information of the benefits, risks, and options available for Residents #6 prior to administering melatonin (sleep aide). 2. The facility failed to obtain a signed informed consent based on information of the benefits, risks, and options available for Residents #14 prior to administering donepezil. 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents environment remained as free from accidents and hazards as possible, for 6 of 21 residents (Residents #32, #44, #53, #62, #66, and #70) observed for bathroom sink water temperature in that: 6 residents (Residents #32, #44, #53, #62, #66, and #70) were living in resident rooms where the sink water temperature was not held between the state regulated water temperature of 100-110 Fahrenheit (F) degrees (Rooms #35, #37, #41 and #42). This failure could place residents at risk for diminished quality of life, injury and burns.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain and ensure safe and sanitary storage of residents' food items for 2 of 3 refrigerators reviewed for food safety (Conference Room refrigerator, and room [ROOM NUMBER]) in that: The refrigerator located in in the conference room did not have a thermometer in the freezer or refrigerator. The refrigerator did not have a log. The refrigerator contained staff personal food, residents' food and unlabeled food. The refrigerator located in room [ROOM NUMBER] contained food and did not have a temperature log present nor did it have a thermometer inside the refrigerator. This failure could place resident at risk for food borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan to meet the highest practicable physical, mental, psychosocial well-being for 1 of 21 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for care plans as follows: Resident #2 did not have a care plan for mood state. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving the care required to meet their Individualized needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who is fed by enteral means receives the appropriate treatment to prevent complications of enteral feeding including but not limited to aspiration pneumonia, diarrhea, vomiting, dehydration, metabolic abnormalities, and stomach ulcers for 1 of 1 resident fed by gastrostomy tube (g-tube) (Resident #33), in that: LVN A did not administer meds by gravity, she pushed them in via g-tube. This failure could result in residents aspirating (inhaling into airway) gastric contents and/or stomach ulcers in residents with a g-tube.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents receiving psychotropic medications had an approved diagnosis and PRN orders for psychotropic drugs were limited to 14 days unless the attending physician or prescribing practitioner believed, and documented, that it was appropriate for the PRN order to be extended beyond 14 days, for 1 of 21 residents (Resident #14): Resident #14 continued to have a PRN order for Clonazepam 0.5mg after 14 days without an evaluation by the physician for continued treatment. This failure could result in residents receiving psychotropic and antipsychotic medications when contraindicated and could also result in residents experiencing adverse drug reactions, decreased quality of life and dependence on unnecessary psychotropic medications.
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 under proper temperature controls and permitted only authorized personnel to have access to for 1 of 21 residents reviewed for medication administration (Resident #46). The facility failed to ensure Resident #46 medication was not left unattended. This failure could place residents at risk to having access to unauthorized medication and/or lead to possible harm or drug diversion.
8 fire safety citations on file: 3 on January 23, 2026, 2 on November 7, 2024, 3 on September 26, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| August 15, 2025 | Fine | $10,546 |
| December 12, 2024 | Fine | $9,000 |
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) | 3.39 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.33 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.16 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.45 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.61 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 95.6% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 88.9% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.60 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 3.48 on weekdays and 3.16 on weekends, 9% 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 3.52 in April to June 2025 to 3.39 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 | 3.39 | 0.33 | 3.48 | 3.16 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 76 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.46 | 0.33 | 3.63 | 3.03 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 76 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.33 | 0.33 | 3.47 | 2.97 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 76 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.52 | 0.35 | 3.68 | 3.11 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 76 |
| 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 | 15.9 | 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 | 9.3 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.2 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.4 | 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 | 5.8 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 26.2 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 12.2 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.1 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Whisperwood Nursing & Rehabilitation Center'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. 15 eligible stays.
9.8% 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. 33 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. 18 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.
3.1% 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. 32 residents counted.
7.9% 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. 32 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. 6 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: LIBERTY COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO 1. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liberty County Hospital District No 1 | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 04/01/2022 |
| Fregia, Milton | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/07/2022 | |
| Gardner, Shannon | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/22/2022 | |
| Gardzina, Margaret | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 02/26/2024 | |
| Henry, Paul | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/09/2009 | |
| Stratton, Charles | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/01/2005 | |
| Huggins, Linda | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Willig, Zachary | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Stratton, Charles | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/01/2005 | |
| Lubbock II Enterprises LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2022 | |
| Blake, Gary | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Blake, Malisa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Lubbock II Enterprises LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/12/2025 | |
| Blake, Gary | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| McPherson, Michael | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/12/2025 | |
| Powell, Keri | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/12/2025 |
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.