1116 E Loop 304, Crockett, TX 75835 · Houston County · (936) 544-2163
113 certified beds, about 64 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1996
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675624 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 25, 2026, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 21 health citations since September 2023, 5 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (5 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 5 fines totaling $77,342 in the last three years; the largest was $15,920, and the latest is dated November 13, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.01 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.49 of those hours.
36.5% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Advanced Healthcare Solutions, an affiliated group of 28 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 21 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living receive the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene for 1 of 12 residents (Resident #31) reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to provide ADL care to Resident #31 from 2/14/2026 to 2/25/2026. This failure could cause all residents not to receive daily personal hygiene needs and cause the residents to have health, social, and emotional issues.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment remains as free of accident hazards as possible for 4 of 12 residents (Resident's #35, #17, #65, and #66) reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to remove worn and damaged mechanical lift slings from service for Resident's #35, #17, #65 ,and #66. This failure could result in a loss of quality of life due to injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, 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 2 of 5 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #53) and 3 of 7 staff (CNA A, CNA D and CNA G) reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure CNA D changed her gloves and did not touch clean items with dirty gloves when incontinent care was provided to Resident #1 on 02/24/2026. 2. The facility failed to ensure CNA A and CNA G followed EBP when completing direct resident care and CNA G changed her gloves and performed hand hygiene when incontinent care was given to Resident #53 on 02/23/2026. 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed ensure 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 6 residents (Resident #53) reviewed for accommodation of needs. The facility failed to ensure Resident #53's call light in the room was left within reach when she was in bed on 02/23/2026 and 02/24/2026. This failure could place residents at risk of injury, pain, hospitalization, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments for 2 of 12 residents (Residents #35 and #53) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #35's comprehensive care plan was revised to reflect current transfer status of requiring a mechanical lift. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #53's comprehensive care plan was revised to reflect requiring EBP related to feeding tube. These failures could place residents at increased risk of falls, injuries, delay in care and/or a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the drug regimen review recommendations from the pharmacy consultant were acted upon for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for drug regimen review. (Residents #34)The facility did not follow up on the pharmacy consultant's recommendations dated 1/24/2025 to 2/12/2026 with the physician for Resident #34. These failures could place residents at risk for medication errors, unnecessary medications, and incorrect administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, maintain medical records on each resident that were complete and accurately documented for 1 of 4 residents (Residents #34) reviewed for medical records. The facility failed to ensure Resident #34's medical records were accurate when LVN J documented meal intake for breakfast and lunch on 2/23/2026. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of improper care and monitoring due to inaccurate medical records.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #42) reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent Resident #42 from eloping from the facility and being located in an empty lot with multiple fall and environment hazards approximately 550 feet behind facility and approximately 300 feet from highway on 10/13/24 at 1:30 am. The facility failed to keep Resident #42 in a safe environment to prevent an elopement on 10/13/24 at 1:30 am. The noncompliance was identified as PNC (past non-compliance). The IJ (immediate jeopardy) began on 10/13/24 and ended 10/14/24. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. These failures could place residents at risk for serious injury, accidents, and death.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food under sanitary conditions in the facility's only kitchen. The facility failed to discard molded food including tomatoes, honeydew melons, and a bag of shredded mozzarella cheese. The facility failed to store food safely including cookie dough, sliced cheese, french fries, whipped topping, and prepared pudding. These failures could place residents at risk for food-borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents have a right to personal privacy for 3 of 12 (Residents #18, #25, and #59) residents observed for care. CNA C and CNA D failed to provide Resident #25 with full privacy while providing incontinent care on 11/11/24. RN A and LVN B failed to sit while feeding Resident's #18 and #59 on 11/11/24. These failures could place residents at risk of not being treated with dignity and respect.
Inspectors wroteBased observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure no more than 14 hours between a substantial evening meal and breakfast the following day, except when a nourishing snack is served at bedtime, up to 16 hours may elapse between a substantial evening meal and breakfast the following day if a resident group agrees to this meal span for residents eating meals in their rooms. The facility failed to ensure that no more than 14 hours lapsed between a substantial evening meal and breakfast the following day and provide a nourishing snack for residents that ate in their rooms. This failure placed residents at risk of their nutritional needs, preferences, and requests being met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment that did not result in bodily injury within 24 were reported within 24 hours for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #42) reviewed for abuse and neglect. The Administrator failed to report an allegation of neglect on 4/14/24 when Resident #42 eloped from the facility and was found in the emergency room parking lot next door to the facility. This failure could place residents at risk for harm and injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new pressure ulcers from developing for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #21) reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility failed to provide wound care for pressure ulcer for Resident #21 on Left Heel for 3 of 27 days and failed to provide wound care for pressure ulcer on Right Buttocks for 4 of 27 days in October 2024 which could have caused pressure ulcers to deteriorate. This failure could place residents with pressure ulcers at risk for wound deterioration and decline in existing pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that respiratory care was provided consistent with professional standards of practice and their care plans for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #19) observed for respiratory care and services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #19's nebulizer mask, humidifier bottle and tubing for the oxygen concentrator were changed per the physician's orders. These failures could place residents who require respiratory care at risk for respiratory infections, breathing in dust and allergens, decreased effectiveness of oxygen concentrators, and exacerbation of respiratory distress.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision was provided to prevent accidents for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents and supervision. 1. The facility failed to properly secure Resident #1 in the facility van on [DATE] and Resident #1 fell forward while in transport striking his head on the side of the van causing a laceration and emergency room care. An IJ (Immediate Jeopardy) was identified on [DATE] at 4:30 pm. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 5:05 pm. While the IJ was removed on [DATE] at 12:07 pm, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of their corrective systems. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations , interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure 4 of 6 (NA B, NA C, NA D, and NA E) staff were not working in the facility longer than four months without having completed a nurse aide competency evaluation program. The facility failed to ensure NA B, NA C, NA D, and NA E became certified within four months of hire as full-time staff. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for receiving care from an individual whose skill level was not known.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical abuse for one of four residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse. 1. The facility failed to prevent physical abuse for Resident #1 witnessed by HA to have been hit on the head by CNA A on 02/27/2024 at approximately 3:00 a.m. during incontinence care. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The IJ began on 02/27/2024 and ended on 03/05/2024. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could place residents at risk for physical harm, psychosocial harm, unsafe environment, and further abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to implement policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of resident to ensure residents were free from physical abuse for one of four residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse. 1. The facility failed to prevent physical abuse of Resident #1 who was hit on the head by CNA A on 02/27/2024. 2. The facility failed to ensure CNA A was not allowed to work after the allegation of abuse had been reported The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The IJ began on 02/27/2024 and ended on 03/05/2024. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could place residents at risk for physical harm, psychosocial harm, unsafe environment, and further abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse or mistreatment were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures for one of four residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse. 1. The facility failed to report physical abuse of Resident #1 to the Administrator immediately following HA witnessing CNA A hit Resident #1 on the head on 02/27/2024 at approximately 3:00 a.m. during incontinent care. 2. HA notified CNA C of a witnessed abuse incident on 02/27/2024 at 6:30 p.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assures the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of medications for 1 of 1 medication storage room and 1 of 3 medication carts (Unit Two Cart) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to remove 1 vial of Insulin from the medication cart that had expired on 09/16/2023. The facility failed to monitor and log the temperatures of the medication storage refrigerator twice daily as indicated by policy. These failures could place residents who receive medications at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of the medications.
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 2 of 5 staff (CNA A, and CNA B) and 1 of 4 residents (Resident #27) reviewed for infection control in that: CNA A and CNA B did not wash or sanitize their hands in between glove changes or change gloves when going from dirty to clean while performing incontinent care to Resident #27. These failures could place residents at risk of exposure to communicable diseases and infections.
12 fire safety citations on file: 4 on February 25, 2026, 3 on November 13, 2024, 5 on September 27, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| November 13, 2024 | Fine | $14,053 |
| August 20, 2024 | Fine | $15,529 |
| March 27, 2024 | Fine | $15,920 |
| March 27, 2024 | Fine | $15,920 |
| March 27, 2024 | Fine | $15,920 |
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) | 3.01 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.49 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.62 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.81 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.71 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 36.5% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 14.3% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.44 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 3.17 on weekdays and 2.62 on weekends, 17% 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 3.09 in April to June 2025 to 3.01 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 | 3.01 | 0.49 | 3.17 | 2.62 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 64 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.16 | 0.43 | 3.30 | 2.81 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 61 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.15 | 0.40 | 3.32 | 2.74 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 65 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.09 | 0.42 | 3.23 | 2.76 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 64 |
| 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 | 11.2 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.1 | 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 | 10.3 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.3 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.6 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 37.0 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 16.5 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.7 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Whitehall Rehab & Nursing's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (44.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
44.5% 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.
10.4% 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. 50 eligible stays.
6.7% 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. 25 eligible stays.
74.3% this home
Median of homes: Texas57.3% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 35 residents counted.
3.6% 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. 55 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. 55 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. 18 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: CORYELL COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY. CMS links this home to Advanced Healthcare Solutions, a group of 28 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coryell County Memorial Hospital Authority | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2017 | |
| Byrom, David | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| Byrom, David | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| Scheiner, Eliezer | Corporate director | Individual | 07/01/2021 | |
| Byrom, David | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| Advanced Hcs LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2017 | |
| Lichtschein, Teddy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2021 | |
| Scheiner, Eliezer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2021 | |
| Shelby, Jack | 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.