Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed, with a clear split between strong positive experiences—particularly around rehabilitative care, amenities, and certain staff members—and serious negative reports that raise concerns about safety, supervision, and the facility's ability to care for fully dependent residents. Many reviewers praise the physical plant and program offerings, but multiple accounts describe inconsistent care, communication failures, and incidents that families found unacceptable.
Facilities and amenities are repeatedly cited as strengths. Several reviewers emphasize that the facility is new, clean, and well equipped with a variety of amenity spaces such as a movie theater, computer room, game room, and multiple rehabilitation areas. The campus layout (six cottages), covered parking, garage storage, and a dog-friendly fenced backyard are noted positively. There is an active schedule—bingo, dominoes, daily devotionals, and other events—that contributes to an engaging environment for residents who can participate. Some reviewers specifically mention good food and a Christian focus as meaningful positives.
Care quality and staffing show a pronounced contrast. Multiple accounts describe very good rehabilitation care, including successful stroke recovery and helpful therapy staff. In those cases, nurses and aides are described as caring and family-like, and communication with families was excellent. However, other reviews raise serious concerns: staff allegedly unwilling to provide full-time assistance for highly dependent residents, incidents of residents being described as unclean by staff, and reports of neglect, overmedicating, and safety risks. One reviewer said the social worker implied a resident needed to "learn to do more for herself," suggesting reluctance to provide needed assistance. Several accounts indicate that quality of care may depend heavily on staffing levels and individual employees, producing inconsistent outcomes.
Safety, security, and medication/medical management are recurring problem areas in the negative reviews. There are multiple mentions of theft of valuables with no investigation, which led at least one family to feel they must monitor everything themselves or consider relocation. Medication concerns include allegations of overmedicating and delays with drug insurance enrollment that reportedly contributed to clinical deterioration and emergency room visits. One reviewer noted internal bleeding and low blood pressure requiring ER care—events tied to poor communication and delays. There is also mention of integrity concerns regarding a physical therapist and lack of supervision that could contribute to patient neglect risks.
Communication and administration appear uneven. Some families report excellent communication and quick resolution of issues, while others experienced poor answers, unresponsiveness, and delays—particularly around physician communication, insurance enrollment, and explanation of incidents. Administrative practices raised red flags for some reviewers, such as holding a deposit for two months, and the perception that staff are often too busy to assist. Decor and some interiors were criticized as uncomfortable or hospital-like despite the newer facility in general.
Patterns and practical implications: reviewers consistently suggest the facility is a good match for residents who are fairly self-sufficient or who need short-term, intensive rehabilitation. The many amenities, engaging activities, and strong rehab outcomes support that view. Conversely, families of fully dependent or medically complex residents reported significant problems—these include hygiene and hands-on care failures, medication and insurance delays, safety incidents, and theft. Multiple reviewers emphasize the need for strong family advocacy and regular monitoring if choosing this facility.
In summary, Texhoma Christian Care Center shows notable strengths—modern facilities, broad activity programming, good food, and documented successes in rehabilitation—paired with troubling reports of inconsistent caregiving, safety and security lapses, medication/insurance problems, and communication breakdowns. Prospective residents and families should weigh the facility's amenity and rehab strengths against the reported risks for fully dependent residents. If considering placement, families should tour the facility, ask targeted questions about staffing levels, supervision, medication management and insurance enrollment procedures, security for valuables, and policies for investigating incidents, and plan for active advocacy and oversight during the stay.
