1100 W Minnesota Rd, Pharr, TX 78577 · Hidalgo County · (956) 686-2243
123 certified beds, about 116 residents a day · Government - Hospital district · Medicare and Medicaid since 1992
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675044 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 25, 2026, inspectors cited 10 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 37 health citations since September 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $54,998 in the last three years; the largest was $38,556, and the latest is dated July 16, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.42 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.13 of those hours.
39.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Hamilton County Hospital District, an affiliated group of 10 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 37 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to use the services of a registered nurse for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week, for 2 (03/01/2026 and 03/15/2026) of 90 days reviewed for RN hours, for the months January 1, 2026 through March 31, 2026. The facility failed to have RN coverage for 2 days on Sunday, 03/01/2026 and 03/15/2026. This failure could place residents at risk of harm by denying residents the advanced critical thinking skills a registered nurse could provide.
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 two of two nourishment rooms. 1. The facility failed to ensure refrigerator temperature logs were filled out correctly for nourishment room [ROOM NUMBER]. 2. The facility failed to ensure food items in nourishment room [ROOM NUMBER] were labeled and dated appropriately. 3. The facility failed to ensure that there were no personal items stored in the refrigerator in nourishment room [ROOM NUMBER]. 4. The facility failed to ensure that leftovers were discarded within 72 hours in nourishment room [ROOM NUMBER] refrigerator. These failures could place residents who consumed food from the kitchen at risk for food borne illness. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, 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 4 Residents (Residents #122, #106, #92 and #12) of 11 residents reviewed for infection control practices during personal care:1. The facility staff were not following Isolation Precautions on wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when entering Resident #122's room.2. Resident #106 was not on EBP and/or isolation precautions for known contagious diseases. 3. Resident #92 was not on EBP and/or isolation precautions for known contagious diseases. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident had a right to personal privacy including personal care for 1 staff (LVN A) providing care to 1 of 3 residents (Resident #19) reviewed for personal privacy, in that: LVN A did not closed Resident #19's privacy blinds during medication administration via feeding tube, leaving the resident in plain view of the outside parking lot area. The deficient practice could affect residents in the facility who received medication via mic-key-tube and could result in the resident being unnecessarily exposed and cause embarrassment.
Inspectors wroteBased on 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 for 1 (Resident #122) of 8 residents reviewed for baseline care plans. The facility failed to include Resident #122's use of contact precautions in her baseline care plan. This failure could result in residents not receiving needed care and treatment. Findings Included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that the comprehensive care plans were reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, for 3 residents (Resident #106, #92, and #12) of 8 residents whose care plans were reviewed for timing and revision.1. Resident #106's care plan did not indicate isolation precautions for known contagious diseases.2. Resident #92's care plan did not indicate isolation precautions for known contagious diseases until 06/24/26. 3. Resident #12's care plan did not indicate isolation precautions for known contagious diseases. These failures could affect residents in the facility by placing them at risk of not being provided with necessary care or services and not having personalized plans developed to address their specific needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for one resident (Resident #8) of 24 residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to follow or revise the physician's orders for Resident #8's soft helmet to be on at all times, may remove for bathing. Resident #8 was not wearing his helmet, and it could not be found anywhere in his room. This deficient practice could affect residents who require care and monitoring, placing them at risk of not receiving the care and services they need.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #121) reviewed for accidents and hazards: The facility failed to ensure a (diabetic) lancet was not left sitting on top of Resident #121's bedside table unattended. This failure could place residents at risk of access to or injury from a lancet.
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 1 of 4 residents (Resident #40) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure proper storage of Resident #40's nebulizer mask tubing when it was not kept in a plastic bag when not in use. This failure could place residents requiring oxygen at risk for respiratory infections due to the potential for microorganisms infiltrating their oxygen, nebulizer equipment and supplies causing a decline in physical health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish a system of records of disposition of all controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation, for four Resident (Resident #25) of 14 residents reviewed for controlled medication use, in that: Resident #25's Individual Resident's Controlled Substance Record did not accurately reflect Resident#25's Tramadol medication amount on hand. This failure could place all residents on the 500 hall at risk for medication overdose, medication under-dose, and ineffective therapeutic outcomes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record reviews the facility failed to ensure a resident receives treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's choices, and maintains acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight or desirable body weight range and electrolyte balance, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that this is not possible or the resident preferences indicate otherwise, for 2 (Resident #1 and Resident #2) of 7 residents, reviewed for nutritional status. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 and Resident #2 were weighed weekly per physician's orders. This failure could place residents at risk for nutritional deficit, weight loss, skin breakdown, and overall decline in quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored in locked compartments under proper temperature controls and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for 1 of 2 medication carts (400 hallway cart) reviewed for medication storage. The facility failed to ensure a medication named Normal Saline flush was not sitting on top the unattended 400 hall medication cart on 3/12/26 at 3:45 p.m. This failure could place all residents at risk of misuse of medication and decreased quality of life.
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 (Resident #1) reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure CNA B and CNA C used the required personal protective equipment for Resident #1, who was on enhanced barrier precautions due to feeding tube during incontinent care on 05/13/26. 2. The facility failed to ensure CNA B performed hand hygiene while providing incontinent care to Resident #1 on 05/13/26 and failed to ensure CNA B and CNA C performed hand hygiene for at least 20 seconds. These failures could place the residents at risk of cross-contamination and development of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who needed respiratory care were provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's oxygen was administered at the prescribed setting of 3 liters per minute on 3/19/2026 as ordered by the physician. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of developing respiratory complications and a decreased quality of care.
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 1 of 4 residents reviewed for quality of care (Resident #1). The facility failed to respond to Resident #1's call light to provide care for 1 hour and 45 minutes on 12/25/2025. This failure could place residents at risk for a delay in care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident the right to be free from abuse for two residents (Resident #2 and Resident #3 ) of 6 residents reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to protect R #2 and R #3 from being hitting each other on 10/15/25 as they passed each other in the hallway. These failures have the potential to place residents at risk of serious injury and continued abuse. The Findings Include: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision was provided to prevent accidents for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for supervision. CNA A did not follow 2-person assist as stated on Resident #1's care plan when providing incontinent care and repositioning on two separate occasions on [DATE] at around 12:00am and 1:00am. On [DATE] at 3:30am CNA A found Resident #1 on the floor. Resident #1 was sent to the hospital and later expired on [DATE]. An IJ was identified on [DATE]. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 3:51pm. While the IJ was removed on [DATE], the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm due to the facility continuing to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of their Plan of Removal. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure 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 after the allegation was made, if the alleged violation involved abuse or resulted in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (which included to the State Survey Agency) in accordance with State law through established procedures for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for reporting injuries of unknown origin. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of each resident's needs, for one Resident (Resident #71), of twenty-four residents reviewed for call light access. Resident #71's call light was placed out of reach of Resident #71 while in bed. This failure could place residents on at risk for not being able to call for assistance from staff.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 (Resident #79) of 6 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility failed to identify Resident #79 was receiving Dialysis on his Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE]. This failure could place residents at risk for receiving inadequate care and services based on inaccurate assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who needed respiratory care were provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences for 1 of 5 (Resident #22) residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #22's oxygen was administered at the correct setting of 2 liters per minute on 04/22/2025 as ordered by the physician. This deficient practice could place residents who receive respiratory care at an increased risk of developing respiratory complications and a decreased quality of care.
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 one resident (Resident #37) of 1 observed for incontinent care, in that: CNA A did not use one wipe per swipe on the penile area during incontinent care on Resident #37. This failure could place residents at risk for infections and cross contamination.
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 one resident (Resident #1) of 1 observed for incontinent care, in that: CNA A did not use one wipe per swipe on the buttock area during incontinent care on Resident #1. This failure could place residents at risk for infections and cross contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that are complete and accurately documented for 2 of 4 Residents (Resident #2, Resident #3) reviewed for medical records accuracy, in that: 1. Resident #2's June 2024 Medication Administration Record documentation record was incomplete. Staff did not document or sign off on the administration of physician ordered insulin. 2. Resident #3's June 2024 Medication Administration Record documentation record was incomplete. Staff did not document or sign off on the administration of physician ordered insulin. This deficient practice could affect residents whose records are maintained by the facility and could place them at risk for errors in care, and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, 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 3 of 6 Residents (Resident #2 and Resident #5 and Resident #6) that were reviewed for infection control and transmission-based precautions policies and practices, in that: 1. CNA C failed to don the appropriate PPE before he entered Resident #2's room. These failures could place residents at risk for infection through cross-contamination of pathogens and infectious diseases.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, record review, and observation, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 6 resident (Resident #51) reviewed for accidents. The facility did not provide supervision to prevent Resident #51's from sustaining multiple falls in the facility. This failure could place residents with a history of falls at risk for additional falls and injuries.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish 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 two residents (Resident #85 and Resident #91) of four residents observed for infection control issues, in that: 1. The CNA A and CNA B did not wash their hands for a minimum of 20 seconds while performing incontinent care on Resident #85. 2. The CNA D removed her dirty gloves and applied clean gloves without sanitizing hands between glove changes while performing incontinet care on Resident #91. These deficient practices could place residents at-risk for infection due to improper care practices.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving neglect, were reported immediately to the State Survey Agency, not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, for for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #39) reviewed for abuse/neglect. The facility did not report Resident #39's had an unwitnessed fall on 01/27/24. Resident #39's lying on the floor next to the toilet and her head in the bathroom shower. This failure could place all residents at increased risk for potential abuse to unreported allegations of abuse and neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure incontinent bladder residents received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and restore continence to the extent possible for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #85) reviewed for quality of care, in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #85's indwelling catheter was not pulled or tugged on during incontinent care that would cause pain or discomfort. This failure could place residents at risk for discomfort, urethral trauma (injury to the duct in which urine is transported out of the body from the bladder), and urinary tract infections due to improper care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care was provided with professional standards of practice for 1 of 3 residents (Resident # 103) reviewed for quality of care in that: Resident #103's oxygen was administered at 2.5 Liters Per Minute instead of 3 Liters Per Minute via trach mask as ordered by physician. This failure could place residents who receive respiratory care at risk of developing respiratory complications and a decreased qualify of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were given psychotropic medications to treat specific diagnoses for 1 (Resident #22) of 5 Residents, reviewed for pharmacy services in that: The facility failed to ensure that Resident #22 did not receive an antipsychotic (Risperdal/risperidone) that was not necessary to treat Vascular Dementia. This failure could affect residents who received medications in the facility and put them at risk for adverse consequences such as impairment or decline in an individual's mental or physical condition or functional or psychosocial status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards or food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for sanitation in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure equipment was clean and sanitized 2. The facility failed to maintain cleanliness of the floor in the kitchen These failures could place residents at risk of foodborne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medical records were accurately documented, for one Resident (Resident #39) of six residents reviewed for accuracy of medical records. The facility failed to document Resident #39's falls in the Progress Notes. This failure could place all residents with falls at risk of not receiving adequate care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents who require dialysis receive such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person -centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences, for 4 of 5 residents (R #2, R #3, R #4, R #5) reviewed for care plans, in that: The facility did not follow R #2, R #3, R #4, and R #5's care plans which indicated to obtain monthly labs from dialysis center and place in the resident's chart every day shift every 30 days. The facility failed to obtain the labs for the following months: September 2023-January 2024 for R #2, November 2020-November 2023 and January 2024 for R #3, July 2023 and August 2023 for R #4, January 2023-April 2023, and June 2023-December 2023 for R #5. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source were reported immediately to the State Survey Agency, within two hours, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious 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 for 1 resident (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for abuse/neglect, The facility did not report the allegation of resident abuse to the State Survey Agency within the allotted time frame for Resident #1 who had been administered CBD and THC oil by FM I. This failure could place all residents at increased risk for potential abuse due to unreported allegations of abuse and neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to review Resident #1's progress notes after NP C documented on progress notes on 12/20/23 that FM I was interested in administering CBD to Resident #1. This failure could place residents at risk of experiencing unmanaged pain, a decreased quality of life, and hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure services provided, met professional standard of quality for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for professional standards. The facility failed to implement Resident #1's physician's order for treatment of her right arm blisters. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the care and services ordered by the physician and a decline in health status.
7 fire safety citations on file: 2 on June 25, 2026, 4 on April 24, 2025, 1 on February 17, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| July 16, 2025 | Fine | $16,442 |
| January 12, 2024 | Fine | $38,556 |
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) | 3.42 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.13 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.17 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.90 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.39 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 39.2% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 37.5% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.11 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 3.53 on weekdays and 3.17 on weekends, 10% 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 3.33 in April to June 2025 to 3.42 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 | 3.42 | 0.13 | 3.53 | 3.17 | 0.0% | 6 of 90 | 116 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.34 | 0.15 | 3.42 | 3.13 | 0.0% | 1 of 92 | 117 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.27 | 0.16 | 3.37 | 3.01 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 120 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.33 | 0.18 | 3.44 | 3.04 | 0.0% | 2 of 91 | 117 |
| 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 | 13.0 | 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 | 2.9 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 14.2 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 22.6 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 32.0 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 23.2 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.0 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Colonial Manor Advanced Rehab & Healthcare's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (57.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
57.5% 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. 63 eligible stays.
11.8% 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. 72 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. 55 eligible stays.
56.0% 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. 50 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. 79 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. 79 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: HAMILTON COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Hamilton County Hospital District, a group of 10 nursing homes averaging 2.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Garza, Jennifer | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Hooper, Grady | Corporate director | Individual | 03/01/2023 | |
| Pharr Skilled Nursing LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 03/01/2023 | |
| Scheiner, Eliezer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2023 |
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.