Texas ›Rusk

Cherokee Trails Nursing Home

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

330 E. Bagley Rd., Rusk, TX 75785 (opens Google Maps) · Cherokee County · (903) 683-5438· 140 certified beds · avg 50 residents/day · certified since Aug 1, 2000 · Medicare and Medicaid certified

Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 20, 2026
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Sep 25, 2024
$30,933
Fines, last 3 years
3.96
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

New to these records? How to read an inspection report →

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · how star ratings work →

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Sep 25, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Sep 26, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 38 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. F-0689

  2. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. F-0761

  3. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. F-0812

View all 38 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
May 20, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
May 20, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761
May 20, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
May 20, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921
May 20, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · F-0640
May 20, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641
May 20, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880
Feb 11, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · from a complaint · F-0550
Mar 19, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Mar 19, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Mar 19, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not develop or maintain an effective training program for its direct care staff, including training on how to communicate effectively with residents. · F-0941
Mar 19, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide its staff with training in compliance and ethics — teaching employees the laws and ethical standards that govern how residents must be treated. · F-0946
Mar 19, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide its staff with required training on behavioral health — caring for residents with conditions like dementia, depression, or other mental health needs. · F-0949
Mar 19, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880
Mar 19, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop, carry out, or maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff members. · F-0940
Mar 19, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not train its staff on dementia care and on recognizing and reporting abuse, neglect, and exploitation. · F-0943
Mar 19, 2025C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · F-0732
Sep 25, 2024▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689
Sep 25, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility employed staff who were not licensed, certified, or registered as required by state law. · from a complaint · F-0839
Feb 7, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · from a complaint · F-0812
Feb 7, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. · from a complaint · F-0851
Feb 7, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · from a complaint · F-0925
Feb 7, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint · F-0880
Feb 7, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not have policies on smoking. · from a complaint · F-0926
Feb 7, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not develop, carry out, or maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff members. · from a complaint · F-0940
Feb 7, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not develop or maintain an effective training program for its direct care staff, including training on how to communicate effectively with residents. · from a complaint · F-0941
Feb 7, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not educate its staff on residents' rights and the facility's responsibilities toward residents. Staff can only respect rights they've been taught about. · from a complaint · F-0942
Feb 7, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not train its staff on dementia care and on recognizing and reporting abuse, neglect, and exploitation. · from a complaint · F-0943
Feb 7, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not give all staff the required training on its quality improvement program — the internal system for finding problems and making care better. · from a complaint · F-0944
Feb 7, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not include required infection control training — with written standards, policies, and procedures — as part of its infection prevention program. · from a complaint · F-0945
Feb 7, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide its staff with training in compliance and ethics — teaching employees the laws and ethical standards that govern how residents must be treated. · from a complaint · F-0946
Feb 7, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention. · from a complaint · F-0947
Feb 7, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide its staff with required training on behavioral health — caring for residents with conditions like dementia, depression, or other mental health needs. · from a complaint · F-0949
Feb 7, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584
Feb 7, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0695
Feb 7, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems. · from a complaint · F-0805
Feb 7, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows. · from a complaint · F-0808
Feb 7, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · from a complaint · F-0813

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (9 → 7).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2024
All citations: 21
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2024211J ▲
202590E
202680E

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

How to file a complaint about care →

1 fine totaling $30,933.

Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.

DateTypeAmount / length
Sep 25, 2024Fine$30,933

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityTexas averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.96
Texas average: 3.46
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.45
Texas average: 0.44
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.46
Texas average: 3.04
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityTexas avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.963.463.95top 16% in Texas; top 41% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.450.440.69top 35% in Texas; bottom 29% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.463.043.50top 18% in Texas; top 44% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.260.340.48bottom 42% in Texas; bottom 24% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)65.355.345.8bottom 25% in Texas; bottom 10% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)66.754.642.9bottom 34% in Texas; bottom 15% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.22, RN 0.36, weekend 2.81.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.22 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.

Quality measures: assessments & claims

Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.

Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Cherokee Trails Nursing Home. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.

Calculate a stay from a quote you receive

Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.

Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.

Before you compare prices

  • Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
  • Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
  • Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.

Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price

Who owns this facility

How to read ownership records →

Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →

Government - Hospital district

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Baylor County Hospital DistrictOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%06/01/2023
Cherokee Trails HC LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2023
Hardin, LeslieIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2023
Lyons, PaulaIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2023
Silberstein, AriIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2023

All 5 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
  • "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
  • "Can we tour the whole building today, including resident bathrooms and common areas, not just the lobby?"
  • "How do you make sure resident assessments are completed and submitted to the state on time?"
  • "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
  • "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
  • "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "CMS reports 65% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
The Arbors Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center2.5 miRusk, TX★★☆☆☆3/5
Legacy at Jacksonville11.9 miJacksonville, TX★★★☆☆4/5
Avir at Jacksonville12.6 miJacksonville, TX★★★★★5/5
Twin Oaks Health & Rehabilitation Center14.3 miJacksonville, TX★★☆☆☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Cherokee, TX — 6 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Rusk →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 675835.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details