TexasMerkel

Merkel Nursing Center

1704 N. 1st, Merkel, TX 79536 · Taylor County · 65 certified beds · avg 19 residents/day · certified since Jun 1, 2005

Abuse citation flag (CMS)SFF Candidate

The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
5
Serious findings on record
$318,060
Fines, last 3 years
3.88
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5

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 self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, repeated · Feb 16, 2026 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

Severity (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.

Corrected: Mar 4, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, repeated · Feb 16, 2026 · 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 (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.

Corrected: Mar 4, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, repeated · Feb 16, 2026 · F-0725 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care.

Why it matters: Understaffing means longer waits for help, missed care, and higher risk of falls and other harm.

Severity (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.

Corrected: Mar 4, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, repeated · Feb 16, 2026 · F-0726 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.

Why it matters: Undertrained caregivers are more likely to miss warning signs and make care mistakes.

Severity (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.

Corrected: Mar 4, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, repeated · Aug 22, 2025 · 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 (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.

Corrected: Sep 1, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (64)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Feb 16, 2026▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Feb 16, 2026▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Feb 16, 2026▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, repeatedThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint
Feb 16, 2026▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint
Feb 16, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing. · from a complaint
Feb 16, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides were properly trained — aides working more than 4 months must be trained and competent, and newer aides must be enrolled in training. · from a complaint
Feb 16, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. · from a complaint
Feb 16, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. · from a complaint
Dec 4, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them.
Dec 4, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 4, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life.
Dec 4, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not regularly inspect bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for safety, or the rails and mattresses were not attached safely to the frames.
Dec 4, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop, carry out, or maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff members.
Dec 4, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop or maintain an effective training program for its direct care staff, including training on how to communicate effectively with residents.
Dec 4, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 4, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not train its staff on dementia care and on recognizing and reporting abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
Dec 4, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not give all staff the required training on its quality improvement program — the internal system for finding problems and making care better.
Dec 4, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not include required infection control training — with written standards, policies, and procedures — as part of its infection prevention program.
Dec 4, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Dec 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Aug 22, 2025▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Aug 22, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · from a complaint
Aug 22, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. · from a complaint
Aug 22, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies. · from a complaint
Aug 22, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint
Aug 22, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
Aug 22, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint
Aug 22, 2025C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not follow the rules about disclosing who owns it, or did not tell the state agency about changes in ownership or key administrative staff. · from a complaint
Dec 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Oct 17, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint
Oct 17, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint
Oct 17, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint
Oct 17, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have policies on smoking. · from a complaint
Oct 17, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · from a complaint
Oct 17, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · from a complaint
Jul 31, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility's quality committee — the internal group responsible for finding and fixing care problems — did not have the required members or did not meet at least every three months. · from a complaint
Jul 31, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Jul 31, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint
Jul 31, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Jul 31, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Jul 31, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides were properly trained — aides working more than 4 months must be trained and competent, and newer aides must be enrolled in training. · from a complaint
Jul 31, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician. · from a complaint
Jul 31, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Jul 31, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Jul 31, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not regularly inspect bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for safety, or the rails and mattresses were not attached safely to the frames. · from a complaint
Jul 31, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · from a complaint
Jul 31, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint
Jul 31, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint
Jul 31, 2024C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not give residents reasonable access to and privacy in using ways to communicate, such as phones, mail, and email. Residents have the right to stay in touch with the outside world privately. · from a complaint
Jul 31, 2024C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility's activities program was not run by a qualified professional. The person directing recreation and social activities must have proper training or credentials. · from a complaint
Jul 31, 2024B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
Jul 31, 2024B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe 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
Jul 31, 2024B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe 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
Jul 31, 2024B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe 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
Dec 15, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · from a complaint
Jun 8, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups.
Jun 8, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to manage their own money and financial affairs.
Jun 8, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure the resident's doctor reviewed their care and wrote, signed, and dated progress notes and orders at each required visit.
Jun 8, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
Jun 8, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jun 8, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Jun 8, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility's quality committee — the internal group responsible for finding and fixing care problems — did not have the required members or did not meet at least every three months.
Jun 8, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (19 → 13).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202390E
2024260F
2025211K ▲
202684K ▲

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)

2 fines totaling $318,060.

DateTypeAmount / length
Feb 16, 2026Fine$137,108
Aug 22, 2025Fine$180,952

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

MeasureThis facilityTexas avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.883.463.95top 18% in Texas; top 45% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.790.440.69top 7% in Texas; top 28% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing2.913.043.50top 49% in Texas; bottom 26% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.670.340.48top 5% in Texas; top 18% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)71.155.345.8bottom 18% in Texas; bottom 5% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)0.054.642.9

Hours are per resident per day, 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 3.35, RN 0.68, weekend 2.52. Staffing rating: 3/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Alexander, RaineyIndividualDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2022
Alexander, JoeIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2022
Alexander, RaineyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2022
Martinez Irizarry, AxelIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2025
Stroh Properties LPOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2022
Stroh, ClarenceIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2022

Questions to ask on your visit

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

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Willowcreek Rehab and Nursing13.8 miAbilene, TX★★☆☆☆2/5
Wisteria Place15.4 miAbilene, TX★★★☆☆3/5
Mesa Springs Healthcare Center15.8 miAbilene, TX★★☆☆☆3/5
Northern Oaks Living & Rehabilitation Center16.0 miAbilene, TX★★★☆☆4/5
Avir at Coronado16.3 miAbilene, TX★★☆☆☆2/5
Hendrick Skilled Nursing Facility16.9 miAbilene, TX★★★★★5/5
Wesley Court Health Center17.0 miAbilene, TX★★★★★4/5
Windcrest Health & Rehabilitation17.4 miAbilene, TX★★★☆☆3/5
The Oaks at Radford Hills Healthcare Center18.0 miAbilene, TX★★☆☆☆1/5
Brightpointe at Lytle Lake18.4 miAbilene, TX★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Silver Spring18.7 miAbilene, TX★☆☆☆☆1/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Merkel →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 676053.