Bangs Nursing and Rehabilitation
Bangs, Texas · CCN 675377
15 surveys since 2011, and no finding has been recorded at harm level.
Data as of , released by CMS on October 8, 2026. Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog.
- Citations on record
- 32
- Surveys
- 15
- Harm or worse
- 0
- Immediate jeopardy
- 0
No finding on record has been cited at harm level or above.
Older surveys no longer in CMS’s monthly file or on Care Compare. They are shown here.
The facility
- Certified beds
- 48
- Ownership
- For profit - Limited Liability company
- Chain
- EDURO HEALTHCARE
- County
- Brown · rural
- Medicare-certified since
- 1994
CMS ratings
- Overall
- 5
- Health inspection
- 5
- Staffing
- 4
- Quality measures
- 2
CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.
Compared with similar facilities
Not shown for this facility: too few citations in window (n=8, floor 20).
Last survey on record
Aug 7, 2025
459 days ago.
Counts surveys with at least one finding. A clean survey leaves no record here, so the real gap may be shorter.
Staffing
| Measure | This facility | Peer median |
|---|---|---|
| Nurse hours per resident day | 3.89 | 3.40 |
| Registered-nurse hours per resident day | 1.02 | — |
| Annual nurse turnover | 44.8% | 50.0% |
As reported by the facility to CMS, beside the peer-group median.
Enforcement
No fines, payment denials or special-focus designation on the current CMS record.
Severity of recent findings
| Severity | Isolated | Pattern | Widespread |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immediate jeopardy | J— | K— | L— |
| Actual harm | G— | H— | I— |
| No harm, potential for more than minimal | D466.7% | E233.3% | F— |
| No harm, potential for minimal | A— | B— | C— |
In the surveyor’s words
From the most serious findings on record at Bangs Nursing and Rehabilitation, in the surveyor’s own words.
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF656Aug 7, 2025
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet, attain, and/or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 6 of 6 residents (Residents #3, Resident #10, Resident #16, Resident #17, Resident #25, and Resident #30) reviewed for care plans. 1.The facility failed when Resident #3 did not have a comprehensive care plan dated 05/13/2025 that included measurable goals related to therapeutic diet, PASRR positive status, medication use, risk for seizures and contractures, or food intake. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF880May 24, 2023
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection. PT B double gloved during incontinent and wound care for Resident #23 and did not sanitize or wash her hands in between glove changes. PT B failed to perform hand hygiene prior to leaving room after performing wound care and incontinence care. CNA C failed to perform hand hygiene or glove changes during incontinent care of Resident #25. CNA C touched residents clothing and linens with soiled gloves after conducting incontinence care. These failures could place resident's risk for cross contamination and the spread of infection. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF686Jul 2, 2024
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident received care, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent pressure ulcers that were avoidable for 1 of 14 residents (Resident #28) reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #28's physician ordered pressure relief boots were placed on Resident #28's feet while he was laying in his bed. This failure could place residents at risk of having skin breakdown . […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF695Jul 2, 2024
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals and preferences for 2 of 5 (Resident # 85 and Resident #19) reviewed for quality of care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #85's oxygen nasal cannula and oxygen tubing were not lying in the floor. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #19's nebulizer mask/tubing was placed in a clear plastic bag when not in use. These failures placed residents of the facility at risk for respiratory illnesses. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF609May 24, 2023
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving of mistreatment, neglect, abuse or injuries of unknown source were reported immediately, but not later than 24 hours after the allegation was made to the administrator and to other officials (including to the State Agency) for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #27) reviewed for reporting an allegation of abuse. The facility failed to report to the administrator of bruising of suspicious nature in shape and/or position within 24 hours for Resident #27. This failure could result in unreported incidents of abuse/neglect and lead to diminished quality of life, and psychosocial harm for residents. […]
Read 20 findings in full →The most serious and the most recent: 20 of 32 on record.
Every survey on record
FindingsAt actual harm or above
- Aug 7, 2025Standard1 finding
- Jul 2, 2024Standard and complaint2 findings
- May 24, 2023Standard3 findings
- Apr 13, 2022Standard2 findings
- Apr 3, 2020Complaint1 finding
- Nov 20, 2019Standard1 finding
- Sep 25, 2019Complaint1 finding
- Jan 10, 2019Standard3 findings
Show the 7 earlier surveys
- Oct 19, 2017Standard1 finding
- Oct 6, 2017Complaint1 finding
- Aug 4, 2016Standard4 findings
- Aug 26, 2015Standard2 findings
- Jun 26, 2014Standard4 findings
- Jun 11, 2012—4 findings
- Jun 3, 2011—2 findings
Surveys that found no deficiencies are not in CMS’s files and do not appear here.
Comparable facilities
The nearest facilities to this one in the same peer group, by weighted findings.
Deficiency Index is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or approved by CMS, Medicare, or any government agency. About this data · Report a correction