8221 Palisades Drive, Live Oak, TX 78233 · Bexar County · (210) 600-3700
123 certified beds, about 114 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1994
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675437 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 23, 2025, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 42 health citations since February 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $12,424 in the last three years; the largest was $8,407, and the latest is dated January 17, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.90 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.61 of those hours.
52.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Ruby Healthcare, an affiliated group of 7 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 42 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain medical records that were complete and accurately documented in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices for 1 (Resident #1) out of 4 residents reviewed for medical records. CNA-A documented inaccurately Resident #1's functional ability regarding the resident was able to walk 150 Feet on 05/06/2026 and 05/09/2026, but the resident could not walk 150 Feet. This failure could place residents at risk for missed treatments which could result in decline in healing and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide clean bed and bath linens that are in good condition for 5 of 8 residents (Resident #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5) reviewed for a safe, clean and comfortable environment The facility failed to ensure Residents #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5 had a fitted and top sheet on their bed for a dignified and comfortable experience in their own beds. This failure could place residents at risk for a decline in quality of life and feelings of frustration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient nursing staff with appropriate competencies and skills set to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident, as determined by resident assessments and individual plan of care and considering the number, acuity and diagnoses of the facility's resident population in accordance with the facility assessment for 1 of 12 nursing staff (RN K) reviewed for nursing services. RN K did not demonstrate competency when she failed to identify and document a left heel DTI upon readmission from the hospital on [DATE] for Resident #1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for infection control in that: CNA D did not wear a gown when providing direct care to Resident #2 who had a foley catheter and was on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). This deficient practice could affect residents on enhanced barrier precautions and place them at risk for infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to send and receive mail, and to receive letters, package and other materials delivered to the facility or the resident through a means other than a postal service, including the right to privacy of such communications for 9 of 9 residents (confidential residents) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure staff distributed mail received on Saturdays to the residents. This deficient practice could result in residents not receiving mail in a timely manner and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible for 3 of 22 residents (Resident #11, Resident #92, and Resident #30) reviewed for accidents and hazards: 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #11 did not have a large pair of nail clippers, and a pair of tweezers in her room. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #92 did not have a pair of sharp scissors and a disposable razor on her bedside table. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #30 did not have all-purpose cleaner in her restroom. These failures could place residents at risk of harm or injury and contribute to avoidable accidents and a decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who required dialysis received such services, consistent with professional standards of practice for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #89 and #53) reviewed for dialysis: The facility did not maintain communication, coordination, and collaboration with the dialysis facility for Resident #89 and Resident #53. This failure could affect residents who received dialysis treatments and place them at risk for complications and not receiving proper care and treatment to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen. 1. The facility failed to not store chemicals on the bottom shelf of a refrigerator. 2. The facility failed to document freezer temperatures for May 14th closing temperature and May 15-19, and May 20th opening temperature. 3. The facility failed to not store personal beverages in the food preparation area. 4. The facility failed to ensure lettuce was stored in a closed container in the walk-in refrigerator. 5. The facility failed to take temperatures of pureed foods and cold foods from 05/18/25 to 05/22/25. The facility failed to take food temperature for 05/21/25 dinner. These failures could place residents at risk for food borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development of communicable diseases and infections for 3 of 8 residents (Resident #30, Residents #33, and Resident #66) reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure, during medication pass, MA M sanitized the blood pressure cuff between Resident #44, and Resident #30. 2. The facility failed to ensure LVN J wore a PPE gown while administering medication to Resident #33 via PEG tube ((an endoscopic medical procedure in which a tube is passed into a patient's stomach through the abdominal wall, most commonly to provide a means of feeding when oral intake is not adequate). 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 (Residents #32) of 8 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to implement Resident #32 care plan to have his lateral supporting positioning device in order to assist with his upright posture to eat. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving care and services related to their identified needs to maintain or reach their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial wellbeing.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was incontinent of bladder and bowel received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #66) reviewed for incontinent care: The facility failed to ensure CNA K provided incontinent care to Resident #66 in the order of cleanest to dirtiest, performed hand hygiene between glove changes, and CNA L changed her gloves and performed hand hygiene after touching soiled linen. This deficient practice could place residents at-risk for infection and skin break down due to improper care practices. Findings Included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that were complete and accurately documented for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #3) reviewed for accuracy of records, in that: The facility failed to ensure RN B and LVN C documented when they contacted the physician for Resident #3's high blood glucose levels (continuously over 200) for 5 days (1/25/25, 1/26/25, 1/27/25, 1/28/25, 1/29/25) and the physician's recommendations for Resident #3 who was not prescribed any insulin. This failure could put residents at risk due to inaccurate documentation and lead to missed or delayed diagnosis and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure all written grievance decisions included the date the grievance was received, a summary statement of the resident's grievance, the steps taken to investigate the grievance, a summary of the pertinent findings or conclusions regarding the resident's concerns(s), a statement as to whether the grievance was confirmed or not confirmed, any corrective action taken or to be taken by the facility as a result of the grievance, and the date the written decision was issued and to maintain evidence demonstrating the result of all grievances for a period of no less than 3 years from the issuance of the grievance decision for 1 of 30 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for grievances in that: Resident #1 verbally complained about his food being discarded, and a grievance form was not filled out on 02/12/2025. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours if the alleged violation involved abuse or neglect and resulted in bodily injury, to other officials (including the State Agency) and the Abuse Coordinator for 1 (Resident #2) of 3 residents reviewed for exploitation. The facility failed to report to the state agency when Resident #2 alleged her ID card, social security card, bank cards were stolen from her wallet. Resident #2 also alleged her monthly social security check was moved to another account with out her knowledge. This failure could place residents at risk of Exploitation/Misappropriation of Property and financial distress.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide drinks, including water and other liquids consistent with resident needs and preferences and sufficient to maintain resident hydration for 6 of 8 residents (Resident #1, #2, #5, #6, #7 and #8) reviewed for hydration, in that: The facility failed to ensure Residents #1, #2, #5, #6, #7 and #8 had access to water and/or beverages in their rooms between meals and failed to ensure 16 ounces of fluid was offered with meals. These deficient practices could affect resident's hydration and lead to discomfort, dehydration, and/or a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 1 (Resident #1) resident reviewed for accidents and hazards. The facility failed to provide a two-person mechanical lift transfer for Resident #1 on 2/11/2025. This failure placed residents at risk for falls and injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for dietary services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 received their prescribed diet (mechanical soft with pureed meat texture) for evening meal service on 2/11/2025. This deficient practice could place residents, who were provided a mechanically altered diet, at risk of choking, aspiration (inhaling food,) and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observations and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the residents had the right to be free from physical abuse for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to ensure CNA B did not hit Resident #1 on her head while trying to get her undressed to take a shower on 11/13/24. The noncompliance was identified as PNC IJ. The noncompliance began on 11/13/2024 and ended on 11/13/2024. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could place residents at risk for harm and continued abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 (Resident #1) of 4 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was coded on her Quarterly MDS for two falls without injury that occurred on 04/13/2024 and 04/22/2024. This failure could place residents at risk of improper or incorrect care and services necessary for their physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the Facility requirements, The facility must permit each resident to remain in the facility, and not transfer or discharge the resident from the facility unless When the facility transfers or discharges a resident under any of the circumstance, the facility must ensure that the transfer or discharge is documented in the resident's medical record and appropriate information is communicated to the receiving health care institution or provider. All other necessary information, and including a copy of the resident's discharge summary, for 1 of 2 (#1) resident that was discharged in that: Resident #1 was discharged from the facility, after not coming back from leave within 72 hours. Resident #1 notified the facility that she would be late due to having car issues, Resident was back in the facility the morning after. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen. 1. There were two plastic storage containers of food in the dry storage room that was not properly sealed. 2. There was a dented can of pineapples stored in the dry storage room. 3. There was a bag of brownie mix that expired on 3/20/24 stored in the dry storage room. 4. There was a container of disinfectant wipes on top of the ice dispenser. 5. The microwave was dirty and had old food particles inside. These failures could place residents who received meals and/or snacks from the kitchen at risk for food borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, for five of nine anonymous residents reviewed for resident rights. Facility residents were not offered the right to vote in the March 5th election and did not have a plan in place to enable residents to vote in the May 28th or November 5th election. This deficient practice could place residents needing assistance at risk for diminished quality of life, loss of dignity, and self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to consider the views of a resident or family group and act promptly upon the grievances and recommendations of such groups concerning issues of resident care and life in the facility for 7 of 9 anonymouse resident council residents. The facility failed to return resident's clothes after laundry service for at least six months after receiving individual and resident council grievances. This deficient practice could place residents needing assistance at risk for diminished quality of life, loss of dignity, and self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that the residents had the right to have reasonable access to mail for four of nine anonymous residents reviewed for forms of communication. The facility did not provide residents with their Saturday mail, and instead it was provided on Monday. This deficient practice could affect any resident and result in access to communication being denied.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 21 (room [ROOM NUMBER], #314, #315, #316, #401, #403, #404, #405, #406, #407, #408, #409, #410, #411, #412, #413, #414, #415, #416, #417, #418) of 23 rooms reviewed for homelike environment: The facility failed to ensure resident bathrooms had hot water maintained at a comfortable temperature which was at least 100 degrees F. These failures could place residents at risk for living in an uncomfortable, and unhomelike environment which could cause a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials, including to the State Survey Agency, for 8 of (Resident #17, #22, #33, #55, #70, #71, #87, and #92) 54 residents reviewed for allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, and mistreatment, in that: 1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with the comprehensive person-centered care plan and in accordance with professional standards of practice for 2 of 21 Residents (Resident #65 and Resident #47) reviewed for quality of care. 1. The facility failed to obtain medical information needed to monitor the parameters of the cardiac pacemaker for Resident #65. 2. The facility failed to obtain a physician's order for Resident #47 to treat diarrhea after twenty-three instances of loose bowel movements in the last thirty days. This failure could place residents at risk for not having care and services provided to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible for 4 of 21 residents (Resident #51, Resident #33, Resident #70 and Resident #71) reviewed for accidents and hazards in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #51 did not have a pair of scissors in his room. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #33, Resident #70, and Resident #71 did not have disposable razors left on their bathroom counters. This failure could place residents at risk of harm or injury and contribute to avoidable accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who required dialysis received such services, consistent with professional standards of practice for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #51, and Resident #82) reviewed for dialysis in that: The facility did not maintain communication, coordination, and collaboration with the dialysis facility for Resident #51 and Resident #82. This deficient practice could affect residents who received dialysis treatments and place them at risk for complications and not receiving proper care and treatment to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure that it was free of medication error rate of 5% percent or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 32% based on 8 out of 25 opportunities, which involved 1 of 3 Residents (Residents #70) reviewed for medication administration, in that: The facility failed to ensure MA D administered 8 medications within acceptable parameters for safe medication administration to resident #70. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving the intended therapeutic effects of their medications and could contribute to possible adverse reactions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to inform each resident periodically during the resident's stay, where changes in coverage are made to items and services covered by Medicare and/or by the Medicaid State plan, the facility must provide notice to residents of the change as soon as is reasonably possible for 1 of (Resident #70) of 8 residents reviewed for coverage notice. The facility failed to develop, implement, and practice appropriate billing practices, subsequently Resident #70's resident liability changed from $0 to $1,395.90 for 11/01/2023-12/31/2023, $1,427.70 for 01/01/2024-02/29/2024, and to $1,262.80 03/01/2024-Ongoing. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure the drugs and biologicals used in the facility must be labeled and stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions and the expiration date when applicable for 1 of 22 resident rooms (Resident #51's room): The facility failed to ensure Resident #51's medications were stored properly in the facility. This deficient practice could affect residents who received medications for treatments and could result in less potent or an adverse effects and drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 3 Residents (Residents #62) reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure LVN E used appropriate hand hygiene and did not wear a gown when providing medications through a feeding tube to Resident #62 who was on enhanced barrier precautions. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of infection for transmission of communicable diseases and a decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen, in that: 1. The walk-in fridge had boxes of food stored on the floor. 2. The dry food storage area had boxes of food on the floor. 3. The dry food storage had containers of food with no lids. 4. The ice machine had a black residue inside above the ice. 5. The sanitizer test strip record was missing recordings. 6. 1 dishwasher sanitizer test strip bottle was expired. 7. A bag of squash had black spots on it and no label. A container of onions had black spots on them and no label. 8. A rack of food was left out from the night before. It had numerous gnats around it. 9. Food temperature was not taken to ensure meat entrée reached a safe temperature. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident, for 3 of 5 Residents (Resident #19, #61 and #311) reviewed for medication administration in that: 1. Resident #19 was observed with at least 9 pills in a medication cup at the bedside. 2. Resident #61 was observed with a jar of prescription ointment at the bedside. 3. LVN F administered Aspart (insulin) to Resident #311 without cleaning the rubber stopper and without priming the insulin pen (removing air bubbles from the needle) prior to administering. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents have the right to formulate an advance directive for 1 of 22 residents (Resident #50) reviewed for advanced directives in that: Resident #50's OOHDNR order did not contain a printed physicians name, the physician's license number, and date which made the advance directive invalid. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not having their wishes known, which could affect whether they receive emergency medical treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the MDS assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for one of 23 residents (Resident #11) reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility failed to ensure the Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] reflected a fall. This deficient practice could place the residents at risk of not receiving the necessary care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 2 of 22 residents (Resident #6 and #82) reviewed for comprehensive person-centered care plans in that: 1. Resident #6's comprehensive care plan did not reflect the resident's use of oxygen therapy. 2. Facility failed to reflect Resident #82's choice to change her own oxygen rate. These deficient practices could affect residents who require care at the facility and result in missed or inadequate care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident's environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible for 1 of 22 residents (Resident #6) whose care was reviewed for accidents and hazards, in that: Resident #6's fall mat (used to prevent injury from fall) was not used while the resident was in the bed. This deficient practice could place residents who were at risk for falls at risk for avoidable accidents and could result in a decline in physical condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care and services, including oxygen administration was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #6) reviewed for respiratory therapy in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #6 was receiving oxygen in a manner prescribed by a physician and the filter on the oxygen concentrator was covered with a white substance. These deficient practices could affect residents who received respiratory therapy and put them at risk for inadequate or inappropriate amounts of oxygen delivery.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs, taking into consideration the preferences of each resident in 1 of 1 kitchen and 1 (Resident #310) of 22 Residents. Resident #310 was not served a breakfast tray. These failures could place residents who eat foods prepared in the kitchen at risk of cross contamination, food-borne illnesses, no food intake, weight loss, and not having their nutritional needs met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #6) reviewed for infection control practices in that: LVN Treatment Nurse J failed to utilize appropriate infection control practices during wound care to Resident #6. This failure could place residents with wounds at risk for infection, slow wound healing and or a decline in health.
9 fire safety citations on file: 3 on May 23, 2025, 2 on April 5, 2024, 4 on February 17, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 17, 2025 | Fine | $8,407 |
| June 1, 2024 | Fine | $4,017 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Texas | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.90 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.61 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.45 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.32 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.97 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 52.2% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 52.9% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.23 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 4.08 on weekdays and 3.45 on weekends, 15% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.00 in April to June 2025 to 3.90 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.90 | 0.61 | 4.08 | 3.45 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 114 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.58 | 0.62 | 3.73 | 3.19 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 117 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.13 | 0.60 | 3.25 | 2.83 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 114 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.00 | 0.52 | 3.14 | 2.65 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 110 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Texas, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.33 | 0.40 | 3.50 | 2.93 | 2.2% | 0.7% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Texas, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.03 | $16.97 to $20.71 | 88,680 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $29.92 | $27.46 to $32.89 | 57,560 |
| Registered nurses | $46.14 | $38.06 to $50.53 | 271,380 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Texas | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.6 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.3 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.6 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.2 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 28.1 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 5.7 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Advanced Rehabilitation & Healthcare of Live Oak's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (56.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
56.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Texas: 116 better, 50 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 108 eligible stays.
11.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Texas: 0 better, 9 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 108 eligible stays.
8.0% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Texas: 4 better, 11 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 94 eligible stays.
73.8% this home
Median of homes: Texas57.3% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 80 residents counted.
0.7% this home
Median of homes: Texas0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 143 residents counted.
2.1% this home
Median of homes: Texas1.3% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 143 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Texas98.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 56 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: HAMILTON COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Ruby Healthcare, a group of 7 nursing homes averaging 3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hooper, Grady | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Live Oak Hc, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| McIntosh, Traci | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Oommen, Biju | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| McIntosh, Traci | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Oommen, Biju | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2023 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Texas. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.