Texas ›Bartlett

Will-O-Bell

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

412 N. Dalton, Bartlett, TX 76511 (opens Google Maps) · Bell County · (254) 527-3371· 90 certified beds · avg 73 residents/day · certified since Jul 19, 2004 · 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 →

Part of chain: CHAMBERS COUNTY PUBLIC HOSPITAL DISTRICT NO. 1 (7 facilities, chain avg rating 3.0★)

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 14, 2026
3
Serious findings on record
most recent Oct 9, 2023
$8,279
Fines, last 3 years
3.72
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: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · 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)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 9, 2023 · F-0580 · triggered by a complaint

The 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.

Why it matters: A family could learn about a serious injury or decline days later, after the chance to act has passed.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. 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: Nov 2, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 9, 2023 · F-0607 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection.

Why it matters: Without working prevention policies, mistreatment is more likely to happen and less likely to be caught.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. 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: Nov 2, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 9, 2023 · F-0609 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation.

Why it matters: When incidents aren't reported promptly, abusers may continue harming residents and outside authorities can't step in.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. 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: Nov 2, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 29 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. F-0636

  2. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. F-0684

  3. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    The 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

View all 29 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 14, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. · F-0636
May 14, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
May 14, 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
Jul 3, 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. · from a complaint · F-0880
Mar 27, 2025E · 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
Mar 27, 2025E · 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
Mar 27, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · from a complaint · F-0644
Mar 27, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645
Aug 5, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684
Apr 23, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint · F-0755
Feb 9, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690
Feb 9, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802
Feb 9, 2024E · 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
Feb 9, 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. · F-0880
Feb 9, 2024E · 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
Feb 9, 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. · F-0941
Feb 9, 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. · F-0942
Feb 9, 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. · F-0943
Feb 9, 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. · F-0944
Feb 9, 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. · F-0945
Feb 9, 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. · F-0946
Feb 9, 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. · F-0947
Feb 9, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · F-0609
Feb 9, 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. · F-0695
Feb 9, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Feb 9, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Oct 9, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0580
Oct 9, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0607
Oct 9, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0609

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (4 → 3).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 3
2024
All citations: 18
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0

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

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202333G ▲
2024180E
202550E
202630D

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 $8,279.

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
Oct 9, 2023Fine$8,279

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: 3.72
Texas average: 3.46
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.26
Texas average: 0.44
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.13
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)3.723.463.95top 23% in Texas; bottom 48% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.260.440.69bottom 18% in Texas; bottom 6% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.133.043.50top 32% in Texas; bottom 38% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.130.340.48bottom 7% in Texas; bottom 4% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)38.755.345.8top 17% in Texas; top 33% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)—54.642.9—

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 3.29, RN 0.23, weekend 2.77.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.29 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: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Will-O-Bell. 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
Brant, PennyIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2021
Brant, PennyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2021
Brown, GeraldineIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Chambers County Public Hospital District No. 1OrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2021
Cooper, KimberlyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/29/2024
Emmons, MichaelIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Goodnight, LarryIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Legg, StephenIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Newton, ElizabethIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE02/22/2024
Smalley, JerryIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Steglich, TimothyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Tinnerman, LindaIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Turner, LeslieIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Voight, JohnIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
White, LindaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Wob Facility Management, LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2021

All 16 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Other facilities in the same chain

CMS lists this facility under the chain Chambers County Public Hospital District No. 1 — 7 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.

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.

  • "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
  • "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
  • "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
  • "How soon after admission is a full assessment completed, and how are the findings shared with the family?"
  • "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
  • "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
  • "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?"

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 39% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 16 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
SPJST Rest Home 114.7 miTaylor, TX★★☆☆☆2/5
Park Place Care Center16.2 miGeorgetown, TX★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Creekside Terrace Rehabilitation18.0 miBelton, TX★★★★☆4/5
Morada Temple18.3 miTemple, TX★★☆☆☆2/5
Avir at Belton18.5 miBelton, TX★☆☆☆☆1/5
Cornerstone Gardens LLP18.6 miTemple, TX★★★☆☆3/5
Georgetown Nursing and Transitional Care18.6 miGeorgetown, TX★★★★☆4/5
Avir at Temple East18.6 miTemple, TX★★★★★5/5
Avir at Temple West18.7 miTemple, TX★★★☆☆3/5
Avir at Weston19.5 miTemple, TX★☆☆☆☆1/5
Baylor Scott & White Continuing Care Hospital Skil19.6 miTemple, TX★★★★★5/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Bell, TX — 16 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 Bartlett →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 676026.

This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).

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