609 Rio Concho Dr, San Angelo, TX 76903 · Tom Green County · (325) 653-1266
126 certified beds, about 65 residents a day · For profit - Individual · Medicare and Medicaid since 2002
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675932 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 30, 2026, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 36 health citations since September 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (3 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $121,840 in the last three years; the largest was $68,572, and the latest is dated August 10, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.05 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.14 of those hours.
75.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Avir Health Group, an affiliated group of 118 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 36 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received reasonable accommodation of needs for 2 of 20 residents (Resident #10 and #55) reviewed for resident rights activities of daily living, received reasonable accommodation of needs . The facility failed to place Residents #10 and #55's call lights within reach. This deficient practice could affect all residents who need assistance with activities of daily living of not having needs met. Findings Include: Record review of Resident #10's admission record dated 04/30/2026 indicated he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of stroke and heart failure. He was [AGE] years of age. Record review of Resident #10's MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated in part: BIMS score of = 10 indicating resident was moderately cognitively impaired. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level I assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for two (Resident #18) and (Resident #13) of three residents reviewed for PASRR Level 1 screenings. The facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the PASRR Level 1 Screening for Resident #18. The PASRR Level 1 Screening did not indicate a diagnosis of mental illness, although the diagnosis of schizophrenia was present on admission. The facility failed to refer Resident #13 for a PASARR Level II review when she was newly diagnosed with schizophrenia. This failure could place residents with mental illness at risk of not receiving a PASRR Evaluation, individualized care, or special services to meet their needs. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person -centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a residents medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 3 of 9 residents (Resident #13, #18, and #26) reviewed for care plans.1. The facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed to address Resident #13's psychotropic medication use and schizophrenia diagnosis.2. The facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed to address Resident #18's psychotropic medication use and schizophrenia diagnosis.3. The facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed to address Resident #26's psychotropic medication use and PTSD diagnosis. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, and comfortable environment for residents in 5 of 6 halls (A, B, C, D and F) in that: Resident rooms and other areas accessible to the residents had drywall damage, lose baseboards, exhaust fan vents with lint built up and restrooms in need of repair. These failures affected the residents and placed them at risk of living in an unsafe and uncomfortable environment .
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission that included instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that met professional standards of quality of care for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #80) reviewed for baseline care plans. The facility failed to develop the baseline care plan for Resident #80 within 48 hours following his admission on [DATE]. This failure could place residents at risk for complications due to the potential for their immediate needs not being identified so interventions could be planned and initiated.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care, was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 8 (Resident #45) reviewed for respiratory care in that: Resident #45's oxygen nasal cannula were bagged when not in use. These failures could place all residents who use respiratory equipment at risk for respiratory infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to report allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment that did not result in bodily injury within 24 hours. In response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, the facility must: ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property are reported no later than 24 hours after the allegation is made to the administrator of the facility and to HHSC, if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury for 2 (Residents #2 and #3) of 3 residents reviewed for abuse, neglect, and misappropriation of property, in that; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility to ensure that the residents had the right to self determination and that the facility promoted and facilitated resident self-determination for 1 (Resident #33) of 7 resident who were reviewed for resident rights. - The facility failed to ensure Resident #33's right to make choices about aspects of his life that were significant to the resident by failing to honor Resident #33's request to be sent to the hospital for evaluation on 05/02/2025 at approximately 3 pm. This failure could place residents at risk for being denied the opportunity to exercise his or her autonomy regarding things that were important in their life and decrease their quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatments and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the residents' choices for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #33) reviewed for quality of care. - The facility failed to ensure Resident #33 received treatment immediately after she requested to be sent to the hospital for evaluation on 05/02/2025 at approximately 3 pm. This failure could place residents at risk for a delay in treatment or diagnosis, a decline in the resident's condition, harm and/or the need for hospitalization and prolonged treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that medications were secure and inaccessible to unauthorized staff and residents for 2 of 3 medication carts reviewed for labeling/storage of drugs and biologicals. The facility failed to ensure that medication carts 1 and 2 were not left unlocked and unsupervised. These failures could cause access, loss, diversion, or accidental ingestion of medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 4 (Residents #30, #64, #63 and #331) of 4 residents reviewed for infection control practices. 1. The facility failed to ensure LVN C used appropriate PPE during dressing changes for Residents #30, #64 and #331 who were on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). 2. The facility failed to ensure CNA G changed her gloves after they became contaminated during incontinent care for Resident #63. 3. The facility failed to ensure LVN C used appropriate infection control principles while performing dressing changes for Resident #331. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for reasonable accommodations, in that: CNA A and CNA B failed to put Resident #2's call light within reach after performing a transfer. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not having their needs/preferences met to not being able to use call lights for assistance in to achieve independent functioning, dignity, and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately consult Resident #1's physician for a decision to discharge the resident after a change in condition for one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed for notification of changes. The facility failed to immediately notify Resident #1's physician regarding an incident with the resident's change of behavior resulting in Resident #1 being discharged from facility. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their physician informed of medical diagnoses not getting treated and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to protect the confidentiality of personal and medical records for 2 (LVN C and CMA D) of 5 staff reviewed for confidentiality of records. 1. The facility failed to ensure LVN C locked her laptop before she left the treatment cart unattended exposing residents personal and medical records. 2. The facility failed to ensure CMA D locked her laptop while she was in a resident's room administering medication exposing a resident's medication record. These deficient practices could place residents at-risk of loss of dignity due to lack of privacy.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide documentation for transfer or discharge by resident's physician for 1 (Resident #1) reviewed for discharge requirements. The facility failed to provide reason for discharge by resident's physician which must include specific resident needs the facility could not meet, the facility's efforts to meet those needs and the specific services the receiving facility will provide to meet the needs of the resident which cannot be met at current facility. This failure placed residents at risk of not having the needed records when transferring care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 2 of 2 resident (Resident #2 and #63) reviewed for accidents, hazards, supervision. The facility failed to safely transfer Resident #2 with a mechanical lift transfer by not locking his wheelchair. The facility failed to safely complete a two-person gait belt transfer with Resident #63 by not locking his wheelchair. These failures could place residents at risk for injuries due to not receiving the appropriate level of supervision.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #28) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure staff remained with Resident #28 while he received his nebulizer treatment. This failure could place residents at risk for respiratory distress.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that ensure the accurate administering of all drugs to meet the needs of the residents and failed to ensure medications were disposed of when expired for 2 of 3 nurses carts inspected for medication storage. The facility failed to ensure the medication cart 1 did not contain expired docusate sodium and loratadine. The facility failed to ensure the medication cart 2 did not contain expired loratadine. These failures could place residents at risk of receiving medications that were expired and not produce the desired effect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review the facility failed to notify hospice of emergency transfer of 1 (Resident #1) of 1 resident reviewed for discharge. The facility failed to immediately notify resident's hospice provider of discharge to another facility. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving necessary care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and records reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality care within 48 hours of a resident's admission for 1 (Resident #2) of 3 residents reviewed for baseline care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 had a baseline care plan developed within 48-hours after admission with goals, services, and interventions. This failure could place newly admitted residents at risk of not receiving the care and services needed to promote good health and continuity of services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program, including hand hygiene, designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections, for one resident (Resident #2) of one resident observed for infection control practices in that: The facility failed to ensure the WCN performed adequate hand hygiene by scrubbing hands with soap for at least 20 seconds or greater before and after performing wound care on Resident # 2. This failure could place residents that require wound care at risk for healthcare associated cross-contamination and infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were free from of any significant medication errors for 1 of 11 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for medication regimen. The facility did not administer physician ordered medications to Resident #1 that included handheld nebulizer breathing treatments, inhalers, nasal sprays, and tablets for diagnosed respiratory diseases. This resulted in the need for Resident #1 to be transferred to ED on 08/04/2024 at 8:55 PM and admitted to hospital with diagnosis of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung disease causing breathing problems) and symptoms of shortness of breath. An Immediate Jeopardy was identified on 08/09/2024. The Immediate Jeopardy Template was provided to the Administrator on 08/09/2024 at 3:40 PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the environment remained free of accidents hazards and provided adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 5 of 9 (Resident #1, #8, #9, #10 and #11) residents reviewed. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1, #8, #9, and #10 were provided direct supervision of staff when smoking. Residents #1, #8, #9, and #10 were allowed to sign out and go outside to smoke in an undesignated smoking area unsupervised in an area with flammable objects of dry grass and dry wood. Residents #1 and #8 were observed to cross the street in front of the facility to the picnic table at the park and smoke in their wheelchairs unsupervised near a creek with an 8-foot drop off. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was safe when smoking with no supervision as evidence by a burn on his clothing, fanny pack and blanket. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident had a right to be treated with respect and dignity for 2 of 4 (Resident #16, Resident #20) residents reviewed for resident's rights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #16 and #20 had privacy covers for their urinary catheter bags. This failure could place residents at risk of low self-esteem resulting in a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, and homelike environment for 1 of 4 resident rooms (Resident #1's room) reviewed for environment. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's room was cleaned of vomit that was on the wall, blinds, bedrails, floors, and mattress. 2. For Resident #3, the facility failed to ensure the room was free of smeared feces on the window blinds, oxygen machine, and wall. This failure could place residents at risk for a diminished clean and homelike environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review 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 3 of 4 residents (Resident #14, Resident #17, Resident #3) reviewed for respiratory care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #14 and #17's nebulizer tubing was kept in bag while not in use. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3's room was free of smeared feces on the oxygen machine These failures could place residents at risk for respiratory infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a significant change of condition assessment within 14 days of determining or should have determined that there had been a significant change in a resident physical or mental condition for 1 (Resident #1) of 9 residents reviewed for significant change in condition. The facility failed to recognize and complete a comprehensive significant change MDS assessment after Resident #1 began refusing medication, wound care, and showering. This failure placed residents at risk of not developing interventions to meet their needs for care assistance and services and possible deterioration in their condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, 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 timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs for 2 (Resident #1 and Resident #10) of 12 resident reviewed for care plans in that: 1. For Resident #1, the comprehensive care plan did not reflect the resident refused wound care and showers. 2. For Resident #10, the comprehensive care plan did not reflect the resident was on dialysis. These failures could result in residents at risk of receiving inadequate interventions not individualized to their care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record reviewed the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring and administering of all medications to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for pharmacy services as the facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received ordered glucose readings and insulin when Resident #1 signed out on pass to exit the facility to smoke. The failure placed residents at risk of not receiving the daily therapeutic dosage of medication prescribed by the physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the Resident's representative/legal guardian requiring intervention by legal guardian for one (Resident #5) of three residents reviewed for resident representative notification. The facility failed to immediately notify Resident #5's Legal Guardian regarding Resident #5 expiring at facility. The failure of the facility not notifying Resident #5's Legal Guardian of the incident led to a delay in arrangement for Resident #5's remains.
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 in the facility's only kitchen, reviewed for kitchen sanitation. The facility failed to: Ensure the handheld multi juice dispenser spigot was cleaned; Ensure the ice machine filter was free from lint and dirt build-up; Ensure proper hand washing to prevent re-contamination. these failures could place residents who receive food prepared in the facility kitchen at increased risk of exposure to food-borne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review the facility failed to provide a homelike environment and comfortable and safe temperature levels withing a range of 71 degrees to 81 degrees Fahrenheit for 2 of 10 rooms (F7 and F10) reviewed for environment. In Resident #54's room F7 the ambient temperature was 69.0 degrees Fahrenheit In Residents #32's room F10 the ambient temperature was 68.5 degrees Fahrenheit This failure could place residents at risk of an uncomfortable environment and diminish their quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to provide the services of a registered nurse for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week in that: The facility had no Registered Nurse coverage on 08/06/2023, 08/12/2023, 09/10/2023 and 09/17/ 2023. This failure could affect residents and put them at risk of improper care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significan medication errors for 1 of 10 residents (Residents #33) reviewed for pharmacy services and medication administration in that: The facility failed to administer medications as prescribed for Residents #33. This failure placed residents at risk of inadequate therapeutic outcomes, increased negative side effects, and a decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to provide basic life support, including CPR to a resident requiring such emergency care and subject to related physician orders and the resident's advance directives for 1 (Resident #1) of 9 residents reviewed for CPR, in that; The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received life saving measures including CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) when she was found unresponsive on [DATE]. The non-compliance was identified as past non-compliance. The IJ began on [DATE] and ended on [DATE]. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before survey began. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving life saving measures including CPR and could lead to death.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to store narcotics in double locked compartments to ensure only authorized personnel to have access to the medication for 1 of 15 residents reviewed. The facility failed to ensure controlled substances received from pharmacy were secured at all times and to permit only authorized personnel access to the medication (Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 7/5-325mg - an opioid used to treat moderate to severe pain) were diverted from the medication room. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving their medications timely, missing a dose of a medication and other personal items being diverted.
16 fire safety citations on file: 8 on April 30, 2026, 4 on February 7, 2025, 4 on January 4, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| August 10, 2024 | Fine | $68,572 |
| January 4, 2024 | Fine | $37,999 |
| December 1, 2023 | Fine | $15,269 |
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) | 3.05 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.14 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.82 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.80 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.11 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 75.3% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 83.3% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.26 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 3.14 on weekdays and 2.82 on weekends, 10% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 7.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.27 in April to June 2025 to 3.05 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 | 3.05 | 0.14 | 3.14 | 2.82 | 7.6% | 5 of 90 | 65 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.13 | 0.17 | 3.26 | 2.79 | 2.6% | 2 of 92 | 66 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.24 | 0.23 | 3.36 | 2.94 | 8.1% | 3 of 92 | 69 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.27 | 0.28 | 3.42 | 2.90 | 23.4% | 0 of 91 | 78 |
| 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. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| 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 | 22.3 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.7 | 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 | 25.3 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.5 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.8 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.9 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Avir at Arbor Terrace's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (51.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
51.9% 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. 59 eligible stays.
11.4% 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. 88 eligible stays.
8.5% 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. 44 eligible stays.
52.4% 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. 21 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 35 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 35 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 10 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: STRATFORD HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Avir Health Group, a group of 118 nursing homes averaging 2.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stratford Hospital District | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 08/15/2022 |
| Chumley, Richard | Corporate director | Individual | 06/01/2023 | |
| 609 Rio Concho Dr Opco LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 10/01/2025 | |
| Freund, Nochum | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2025 | |
| Travitsky, Aaron | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2025 | |
| Dagan, Amitai | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 02/19/2026 | |
| Goldberger, Abraham | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 02/20/2026 | |
| Goldberger, Faigy | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 02/20/2026 | |
| 609 Rio Concho Dr Opco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/27/2026 | |
| 609 Rio Concho Dr Property Owner LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2025 | |
| Welltower Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2025 | |
| Welltower Nnn Group, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2025 | |
| Welltower Op, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2025 | |
| Hunt, John | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2023 | |
| Kohlleppel, Alta | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2023 |
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.