50 Briggs Ave., San Antonio, TX 78224 · Bexar County · (210) 921-0184
119 certified beds, about 95 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1987
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 455713 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 30, 2025, inspectors cited 16 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 43 health citations since June 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $29,494 in the last three years; the largest was $11,180, and the latest is dated August 30, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 2.63 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.07 of those hours.
60.7% 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 43 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, 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 includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 5 of 5 residents (Residents #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5) reviewed for care plans: The facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for Resident #1 and Resident #5. The facility failed to ensure Residents #2, #3, and #4 had a completed comprehensive care plan. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving care and services needed to meet individualized needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, 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, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours for 1 of 1 provider investigation reports reviewed for freedom of abuse, neglect, and exploitation. The facility failed to report an alleged abuse incident within 2 hours of the incident occurring on 2/20/26. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to have the comprehensive care plan reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #7) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility failed to revise Resident #7's care plan after a change in behavior. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving needed care and treatment.
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 1 of 5 (Resident #6) reviewed for medications and pharmacy services, in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #6 did not have medication in their room. 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 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 disease and infection for 1 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #6) for infection control. The facility failed to ensure Resident #6's indwelling urinary catheter bag and tubing were not touching the floor These failures could place residents at risk for cross contamination and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments for 1 of 7 residents (Residents #1) reviewed for care plans, in that: The facility failed to review and revise Resident #1's comprehensive care plan after the resident's quarterly assessment dated [DATE] and annual assessment dated [DATE]. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of receiving inadequate care to meet their physical, psychosocial and functional needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 1 (Resident #1's room) of 12 resident rooms reviewed for physical environment. The facility failed to ensure there were no pests in Resident #1's room on 9/5/25. This failure could place residents at risk of psychosocial harm due to diminished quality of life and/or physical harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse or neglect, exploitation or mistreatment were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events resulted in serious bodily injury for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for reporting. The facility failed to report to the state survey agency that Resident #1 sustained an injury as a result of ants in her bed on 9/5/25. This failure could place residents at risk for neglect, diminished quality of life, physical, and/or psychosocial harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record reviews, 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 2 of 16 residents (Residents #9 and #63) reviewed for accidents and hazards. 1. Resident #9 was observed with her own smoking paraphernalia which included a lighter (a self-contained ignition source used to lite cigarettes) and was observed smoking on the facility property without supervision and or at the assigned agreed upon times for supervised smoking. 2. Resident #106 was discovered with smoking paraphernalia which included a lighter and cigarettes, and was actively smoking, while receiving oxygen therapy, in his bathroom twice, once on 8/12/2025 and again on 8/21/2025. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the residents were free from chemical restraints not required to treat the residents' medical symptoms for 1 (Resident #60) of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility failed to ensure Resident #60 received a gradual dose reduction for anti-psychotic medication, Zyprexa. This deficient practice could affect any resident receiving medications and could result in adverse effects and ultimately a decline in physical condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, were reported not later than 24 hours if the events that caused 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) in accordance with State law through established procedures, for 2 of 8 residents (Residents #9 and #63) reviewed for allegations of neglect. 1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 2 of 16 residents (Resident #91 and Resident #106) whose records were reviewed for quality of care. 1. Facility staff failed to identify, respond, and act upon Resident #91's critical lab, glucose (blood sugar) level of 40 received on 8/14/25. 2. Facility staff failed to follow Resident #106's transferring physicians orders for eye patch/assistance, monitoring for potential adverse reactions to medications, and his physician's prescribed lab orders. These deficient practices could affect any resident and could contribute to the decline of the resident's health statuses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to promptly notify the ordering physician of laboratory results that fell outside of clinical reference ranges for 1 (Resident #91) of 16 residents whose medical records were reviewed for lab work. Facility staff failed to identify, respond, and act upon Resident #91's critical lab, glucose (blood sugar) level of 40 received on 8/14/25. This deficient practice could affect any resident and could contribute to the decline of the resident's health statuses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly for 1 of 1 dumpster reviewed for disposal of garbage. The facility's dumpster presented with 1 30-gallon bag of trash besides the garbage dumpster and scattered garbage surrounding the dumpster area. This failure could place residents at risk for reduced health status and degraded morale.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to immediately consult with the resident's physician when there was a significant change in the resident's physical status (that is, a deterioration in health status, (status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications) for 1 of 6 Residents (Resident #91) whose records were reviewed. LVN W failed to notify Resident #91's physician on 8/14/25 when he received a critical lab reflecting Resident #91's blood sugar was 40. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for a delay in treatment and a decline in the resident's physical condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 6 Residents (Resident #76) whose MDS records were reviewed. MDS Coordinator/LVN T failed to include in Resident #76's MDS assessment that she had lost weight in the last 6 months. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not receiving the care and services as needed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that includes 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 and failed to include the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for a resident including, but not limited to, initial goals based on admission and physician orders for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #104), reviewed for comprehensive resident centered care plans. Resident #104's baseline care plan dated 8/23/25 did not include her diagnoses, contact isolation for MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus bacteria) to her wound, and did not have interventions and goals for 5 of 5 days during the survey period. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 2 of 6 Residents (Resident #76 and Resident #91) reviewed for care plans . The facility failed to include in Resident #76's comprehensive care plan that she had a self-performance deficit, and she was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living. The facility failed to include in Resident #91's comprehensive care plan that he had diabetes mellitus and received insulin on a regular basis. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not receiving the care and services as needed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed ensure a resident with limited range of motion received appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and/or to prevent further decrease in range of motion for 1 of 6 Residents (Resident #54) whose records were reviewed. Nursing staff failed to apply a splint on Resident #54's right arm/wrist as tolerated for a right-hand contracture for 5 days, during the survey process. This deficient practice could affect residents with range of motion deficits and could contribute and result in a resident's decrease in their range of motion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for expired foods. The facility stored 13, 46 ounce, containers of thickened orange juice which were expired by 17 days. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for food borne illnesses.
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 4 residents (Resident #30), reviewed for infection control, in that: Resident #30 was provided high contact care and transferred from her bed to her wheelchair without the use of the appropriate EBP (Enhanced Barrier Precautions) on 8/27/25. This failure could place residents at risk of cross contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure they had reports with respect to any surveys, certifications, and complaint investigations made respecting the facility during the 3 preceding years, and any plan of correction in effect with respect to the facility, available for any individual to review upon request. The facility failed to ensure all survey results for the previous 3 years were available in the survey binder for residents and their family or legal representative or legal representative to examine. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of a violation of their rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations interviews and record reviews and in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, the facility failed to ensure their medical records were maintained complete, accurate, readily accessible, and systematically organized for 92 of 92 residents reviewed for readily accessible and systematically organized medical records. On July 31st, 2025, the facility stopped using an electronic medical record database and began using paper charts to provide care for their residents and on 8/26/2025 the facility had a disorganized and decentralized medical records for their census of 92 residents. These failures could have potentially placed residents at risk for harm by disorganized and decentralized medical records.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to notify and send a copy of the residents' discharge notice to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman when the facility transferred or discharged a resident under any circumstances for 1 of 6 months (July 2025) reviewed for discharge notices. The BOM failed to provide a copy of a list of residents who were discharged from the facility during July 2025 to the State Ombudsman. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not being provided their right to discuss their options with the State Ombudsman.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure all necessary information, including a resident's discharge summary or a 30-day written discharge notice was completed to ensure a safe and effective transition of care for 1 (Resident #1) of 4 residents reviewed for safe transfer or discharge. 1. The facility failed to provide a notification of transfer notice in written form and in a manner that Resident #1 and Resident #1's RP/POA could understand prior to Resident discharge on [DATE]. 2. The facility failed to record the reasons for the transfer in Resident #1's medical record when discharged on 05/16/2025. 3. The facility failed to provide a 30-day written notice of transfer to Resident #1 and to the facility's ombudsman prior to Resident #1's discharged from the facility on 05/16/2025. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 4 of 4 residents (Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, Resident #5) reviewed for accurate assessments: Resident #2's BIMS & PHQ assessment dated [DATE] were completed during the time when resident was hospitalized , and resident interview was not completed. Resident #3's BIMS & PHQ assessments dated 10/15/2024 were completed during the time when resident was hospitalized , and resident interview was not completed. Resident #4's BIMS & PHQ assessments dated 03/03/2025 were completed during the time when resident was hospitalized , and resident interview was not completed. Resident #5's BIMS & PHQ assessments dated 03/31/2025 were completed during the time when resident was hospitalized , and resident interview was not completed. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 7 (Residents #6-12) of 9 residents reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to implement the required elements for transmission based precautions, including signage and readily available PPE, for Residents #6-11. 2. The facility failed to don appropriate PPE while performing an invasive procedure on Resident #12. These failures could cause the spread of infection and illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, 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 (100/200 hall crash cart) out of 2 crash carts and 1 (Resident #18) out of 5 residents reviewed for medical records. 1. Facility night nurses did not initial on the crash cart supply verification sheet after checking supplies inside the 100/200 hall crash cart on 04/08/2025, 04/09/2025, 04/10/2025, 04/16/2025, 04/17/2025, and 04/18/2025. 2. Facility medication aide-C did not document exact times when she administered Resident #18's medications on the resident's medication administration record. This failure placed residents at risk for missed treatment and medications which could result in decline in heal and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, 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 4 residents (Resident #3 and Resident #4) reviewed for quality of care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3 received wound care on 3/18/2025 and 3/19/2025 when the Treatment Nurse failed to re-approach or assess the reason for a refusal to complete wound care throughout the shift and failed to pass along to the next shift when a dressing change was refused on 3/18/2025. In addition, the Treatment Nurse failed to attempt wound care the following day which resulted in missed wound care on 3/18/2025 and 3/19/2025. 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure provided food was prepared in the proper form to meet residents needs for 1 of 6 residents reviewed, (Resident #1), reviewed for food form. On 7/21/24 the facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was given the correct physician-ordered diet texture of a meal which led to choking. An IJ was identified on 07/22/24. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 7:07 pm. While the IJ was removed on 07/26/24 the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated with a potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy, due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. This failure could place residents at risk of choking, decline in health and death.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and time frames to meet a resident's medical and nursing needs to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 3 of 8 residents (Resident #50, Resident #74 and Resident #138) reviewed for comprehensive care plans in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #50 had an order for bed rails and was care planned for the rails on her bed. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #74 care plan reflected he had a catheter. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #138 care plan reflected he had a catheter. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure correct installation, use, and maintenance of bed rails for 3 residents of 8 residents (Resident #16, Resident #50, and Resident #138) reviewed for use of side or bed rails in that: The facility did not ensure Resident #16, #50, and #138 were assessed for risk of entrapment from bed rails before they were installed and did not have a signed informed consent from his responsible party for the bed rails. This failure could affect residents who use bed or side rails as enablers and could result in entrapment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure its medication error rates were not 5% or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 62.96%, based on 17 errors out of 27 opportunities which involved 3 of 8 residents (Resident #16, Resident #63 and Resident #79) reviewed for medication administration and medication errors. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #16 received her medications on time. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #63 received her medications on time and received her bumetanide (used to reduce extra fluid in the body (edema) caused by conditions such as heart failure, liver disease, and kidney disease) as ordered. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #79 received his medications on time. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for one of one laundry room reviewed for environment. The facility failed to properly dispose and maintain the lint accumulation in the facility dryers in a timely manner. This failure could put residents at risk for an unsafe and unsanitary environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete an assessment which accurately reflected the resident's status for 2 of 8 residents (Residents #52 and #138) reviewed for assessments. 1. The facility failed to indicate Resident #138 had an indwelling catheter on their MDS. 2. The facility failed to indicate Resident #52 was receiving Dialysis and oxygen services on her MDS. These failures could result in inadequate care due to an incomplete assessment of the residents' physical status.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR) program under Medicaid in subpart C of this part to the maximum extent practicable to avoid duplicative testing and effort for 2 of 8 residents reviewed for PASRR (Resident #8 and Resident #35). 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #8 had an accurate PASRR Level 1 Screening indicating diagnoses of mental illness and refer the residents to the state local authority for an evaluation. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #35 had an accurate PASRR Level 1 Screening indicating diagnoses of mental illness and refer the resident to the state local authority for an evaluation. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving needed assessments (PASRR Evaluation), individualized care, and specialized services to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to review and revise Resident Care Plans after each assessment for 2 of 8 Residents (Resident #68 and Resident #71) whose records were reviewed. 1. Resident #68's Care Plan was not updated after his significant change MDS reflected he was dependent on staff for ADL care. 2. Resident #71's Care Plan was not updated after he experienced a change of condition and developed a venous ulcer to his left shin. These deficient practice could affect any resident and contribute to Residents not receiving the care and services they needed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident received assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 8 Residents (Resident #69) whose records were reviewed for falls. CNA E and CNA F failed to use a gait belt properly by applying a gait belt over Resident #69's breast instead of around her waistline during a bed to wheelchair transfer. LVN G failed to use a gait belt while transferring Resident #69 from the wheelchair to the bed. These deficient practices could affect any residents who required assistance with transfers and could contribute to an avoidable fall/injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who is incontinent of bladder receives appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible for 2 of 2 resident (Resident #74's and #138) reviewed for indwelling urinary catheter. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #74's catheter was off the floor and protect from potential contaminants on the floor and from staff stepping on the catheter bag and tubing. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #138 had physician orders to care for his catheter and daily care was performed and documented. This deficient practice could place residents with in dwelling urinary catheters at-risk for urinary tract infections and/or pain.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to employ staff with the appropriate competencies and skill sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, taking into consideration resident assessments, individual plans of care, and the number, acuity and diagnoses of the facility's resident population in accordance with the facility assessment required. The Dietary Manager (DM) did not have the appropriate certification, education, or qualifications to serve as the Director of Food and Nutrition Services. This deficient practice could place the residents who consume food prepared from the kitchen at risk of food borne illness and not receiving adequate nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to collaborate with hospice representatives and coordinate the hospice care planning process for each resident receiving hospice services, to ensure quality of care for the resident, ensuring communication with the hospice medical director, the resident's attending physician, and others participating in the provision of care for 2 of 6 residents (Resident #2 and Resident #138) reviewed for hospice services, in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's most recent Physician Certification of Terminal Illness and Hospice election form were completed and part of the hospice documents. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #138's Physician Certification of Terminal Illness was completed, the most recent plan of care was available at the facility, and hospice physician orders were available and at the facility. [...]
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 to help prevent the development and transmission of infections for 2 of 8 residents care (Resident #74 and Resident #81) reviewed for infection control, in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #74's fall mat was clean. 2. The facility failed to ensure LVN E performed hand hygiene between glove changes while administering Resident #81's bolus tube feeding. These deficient practices could place residents at-risk for infections.
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 2 nutrition rooms (South Hall nutrition room) reviewed for kitchen sanitation in that: The facility failed to remove expired food from the South Hall nutrition room. This failure could place residents at risk for cross-contamination and foodborne illnesses.
8 fire safety citations on file: 5 on August 30, 2025, 2 on July 26, 2024, 1 on June 2, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| August 30, 2025 | Fine | $8,278 |
| August 30, 2025 | Fine | $11,180 |
| July 26, 2024 | Fine | $10,036 |
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) | 2.63 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.07 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.38 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.70 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.86 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 60.7% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 83.3% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.62 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 2.73 on weekdays and 2.38 on weekends, 13% 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 2.75 in April to June 2025 to 2.63 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 | 2.63 | 0.07 | 2.73 | 2.38 | 0.0% | 18 of 90 | 95 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.70 | 0.09 | 2.78 | 2.50 | 0.1% | 9 of 92 | 95 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.69 | 0.09 | 2.78 | 2.44 | 1.2% | 9 of 92 | 93 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 2.75 | 0.11 | 2.88 | 2.43 | 4.6% | 2 of 91 | 97 |
| 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 | 23.8 | 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 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 24.3 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.0 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.0 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 22.9 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.3 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.5 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Avir at San Antonio's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 24 eligible stays.
9.8% 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. 55 eligible stays.
6.8% 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. 43 eligible stays.
34.8% 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. 23 residents counted.
8.8% 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. 34 residents counted.
7.9% 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. 34 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. 4 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: 50 BRIGGS AVE OPCO LLC. CMS links this home to Avir Health Group, a group of 118 nursing homes averaging 2.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 Briggs Ave Holdings LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 09/01/2025 | |
| Ana Tx Holdings, LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 09/01/2025 | |
| Graf Holdings LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 09/01/2025 | |
| Tx SNF Holdings II LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 09/01/2025 | |
| Tx SNF Holdings Member, LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 09/01/2025 | |
| Dagan, Amitai | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 09/01/2025 | |
| Freund, Nochum | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 09/01/2025 | |
| Goldberger, Abraham | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 09/01/2025 | |
| Goldberger, Faigy | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 09/01/2025 | |
| Travitsky, Aaron | Indirect ownership interest | Individual | 09/01/2025 | |
| Freund, Nochum | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/01/2025 | |
| Travitsky, Aaron | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2025 | |
| 50 Briggs Ave Property Owner LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/01/2025 | |
| Welltower Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/01/2025 | |
| Welltower Nnn Group, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/01/2025 | |
| Welltower Op, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/01/2025 | |
| Simon, Gabriela | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2025 | |
| Yalamuri, Ravikanth Reddy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2025 |
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.