555 Ranch Rd 3237, Wimberley, TX 78676 · Hays County · (512) 847-5540
122 certified beds, about 70 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1991
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 455917 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 26, 2025, inspectors cited 7 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 36 health citations since February 2023, 6 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (4 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 4 fines totaling $75,581 in the last three years; the largest was $25,530, and the latest is dated September 29, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 2.69 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.51 of those hours.
56.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Eduro Healthcare, an affiliated group of 34 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, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to be free from exploitation and misappropriation of property for three of three residents ((Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3) reviewed for misappropriation of residents' property. The facility failed to prevent a diversion (misappropriation) of Resident #1's PRN Oxycodone-Acetaminophen 10-325 MG medication. (Oxycodone-Acetaminophen was used to treat pain.)The facility failed to prevent a diversion (misappropriation) of Resident #2's PRN Oxycodone 5 MG medication. (Oxycodone was used to treat pain.)The facility failed to prevent a diversion (misappropriation) of Resident #3's Oxycodone HCl Oral Tablet 15 MGThe facility failed to prevent a diversion (misappropriation) of Resident #4's 60 tablets of Oxycodone 5 MG reported missing on 06/29/2026. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to establish a system of records of receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation for one (Resident #1) reviewed for medications. The facility failed to document the receipt and disposition Resident #1's Oxycodone HCI medication. This failure could result in controlled medications not accurately and periodically reconciled.
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 one of one kitchen reviewed for sanitation. The facility failed to ensure all items were covered and stored properly. The facility failed to label and date all food items in the kitchen. The facility failed to ensure all staff in the kitchen wore hairnets or beard guards. These failures could place residents at risk of foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received and the facility provided food prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance for 1 of 1 meal (lunch) reviewed for pureed diet texture. The facility failed to ensure the nutritional content of the pureed food when the facility used water only to puree the chicken tenders and broccoli on 09/25/25. This deficient practice could place residents at-risk for poor intake and malnutrition related to decreased calorie intake.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and records review the facility failed to ensure that residents (Resident #1) environment remains as free of accident hazards. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was free of accidents and hazards, as Resident #1 spilled a hot liquid onto her leg. Resident #1 sustained a second-degree burn to her left thigh. This failure placed residents at risk of serious harm and injuries which could result in hospitalization and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately consult with the resident's physician when there was a significant change for one (Resident #1) of four residents reviewed for notification of changes. The facility failed to notify the NP when Resident #1's diabetic pump malfunctioned in July of 2025. Resident #1's blood sugar readings were sporadically out of range which led her to experience increased dizziness, nausea, and sweatiness. This failure resulted in an identification of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 07/30/25 PM and a template was provided. While the IJ was removed on 08/01/25 at 2:13 PM, the facility remained at a level of no actual harm at a scope of pattern that is not immediate jeopardy due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on 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 four residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to: - Notify Resident #1's NP when her diabetic insulin pump malfunctioned in July of 2025. - Ensure nursing staff were trained on Resident #1's insulin pump.- Ensure nursing staff were aware of how much insulin Resident #1 was receiving and not relying on her for blood sugar readings.- Ensure there were parameters in place on when to notify Resident #1's NP when her readings were abnormal. These failures resulted in an identification of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 07/30/25 at 2:14 PM and a template was provided. [...]
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 one of one kitchen reviewed for sanitation. 1. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to consider the views of the resident or family group and act promptly upon the grievances and recommendations of such groups concerning issues of resident care and life in the facility or to demonstrate their response and rationale for such response for 1 of 1 resident council reviewed. The facility failed to follow up on concerns and requests expressed in resident council meetings from January 2025 through June 2025. This failure placed residents at risk of not having their preferences honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and records review, the facility failed to allow residents to manage his or her financial affairs for 1 of 1 resident council reviewed. The facility failed to ensure all residents whose funds are managed by the facility had ready access to his or her funds upon request in a timely manner, including non-business days, Saturday, and Sundays. This failure could place all residents whose funds were managed by the facility of not receiving funds deposited with the facility and not having their rights and preferences honored.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to serve foods that were palatable and attractive and prepare food by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance for 1 of 1 kitchen observed. 1. The pureed kitchen test tray of the lunch meal foods were unappealing and lacked flavor. The pureed kitchen test tray lacked condiments, the food items did not hold their form and ran together, there was no garnishment of the food tray, and the dessert of lemon pie parfait was so thick, gummy, and tasted of food thickener it was inedible. 2. The regular texture kitchen test tray of the lunch foods were unappealing and lacked flavor. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents had suitable, nourishing meals and snacks outside of scheduled meal service times for 2 of 2 halls (100 and 200 halls) and 2 of 2 refrigerators in 2 of 2 nourishment rooms (100 hall and 200 hall) reviewed for evening snack. The facility failed to ensure residents were offered snacks at bedtime on the 100 and 200 halls. The facility failed to have reserves of snacks for after dinner and at bedtime in 2 of 2 refrigerators in the nourishment rooms. This failure could affect all residents who received meals served from the facility's only kitchen by placing residents at risk for unplanned weight loss, side effects from medication given without food, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to adequately equip residents the ability to call for staff assistance through a communication system, which relays the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area, from the bathroom for 56 of 61 resident rooms reviewed for resident call systems. The facility failed to ensure resident bathrooms had a pull string attached to the push button call light switch making the call light button inaccessible if the resident was lying on the floor in their bathrooms in rooms: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility was free of pests and rodents for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for pests. 1. The facility failed to ensure resident rooms were free from flies for Resident #58. 2. The facility failed to ensure the facility was free of gnats and flies throughout the facility including dining rooms, hallways, and kitchen. This failure placed residents at risk of exposure to pests, diseases, infections, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to provide an ongoing activities program to support residents in their choice of activities, both facility sponsored group and individual activities, and independent activities, designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident, encouraging both independence and interaction in the community for one of three residents (Resident #7) reviewed for activities. The facility failed to provide Resident #7 in room activities during the months of May and June of 2025. This failure could place residents at risk for boredom, depression, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, 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 #20) of three residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #20 had his lower extremities wrapped with elastic compression bandages as directed by physician orders. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving necessary medical care, pain, injury, infection, and hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, 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 1 resident (Resident #15) and 1 of 1 (100-Hall) medication room reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed the ensure expired medication, including medication prescribed for Resident #15, and medical supplies were removed from 100-hall medication storage room. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving an expired medication, not reaching the intended therapeutic dose, and/or contamination from expired supplies.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, 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, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for two (Resident #1 and Resident #2) of five residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to document wound care treatments for Resident #1's right calf (11 times) and Resident #2's left and right heels (4 times) according to physician orders in the months of May and June 2025. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving appropriate care and treatment and/or a decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice to promote wound healing and to prevent new pressure ulcers from developing for one ( Resident #2) of five residents reviewed for pressure injuries. The facility failed to conduct wound care treatments for Resident #2's left and right heels (4 times) according to physician orders in the months of May and June 2025. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving appropriate care and treatment and/or a decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately consult with the resident's physician when there was a significant change for one (Resident #1) of four residents reviewed for notification of changes. The facility failed to ensure the NP was notified on 02/10/25 when there was reported swelling and tenderness to Resident #1's incision sites. On 02/11/25 one of the incisions dehisced requiring hospitalization where he was diagnosed with an infection to the surgical site requiring antibiotics. This failure resulted in an identification of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 05/02/25 at 4:44 PM. While the IJ was removed on 05/05/25 12:46 PM, the facility remained at a level of no actual harm at a scope of isolated that is not immediate jeopardy due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. [...]
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 four residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's surgical sites were determined to be healed by the NP or MD. On 02/10/25 there was reported swelling to the incisions and on 02/11/25 one of the incisions dehisced requiring hospitalization where he was diagnosed with an infection to the surgical site requiring antibiotics. This failure resulted in an identification of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 05/02/25 at 4:44 PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure storing all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature controls, and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys , for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for their controlled drugs storage. The facility failed to ensure one bottle of Hydrocodone and one bottle of Valium of Resident #1 were stored in a separately locked, permanently affixed compartments for storage of controlled drugs. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving medications due to drug diversion that leads to not achieving the intended therapeutic effects of medications. .
Inspectors wroteBased on 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 four residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to conduct all necessary neurological checks after Resident #1 had unwitnessed falls on 06/17/24 and 06/20/24 and failed to complete a skin assessment after she was found with a hematoma to her vaginal area on 06/20/24. These failures could place residents at risk of uncontrolled pain, injury, and hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all allegations involving abuse, neglect, or injuries of an unknown source were reported immediately but not later than 24 hours after the allegation was made for one (Resident #1) of four residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility failed to report to the State Survey agency of an injury of unknow origin as Resident #1 was found with a deep purple hematoma to her vaginal area. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of abuse and neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchens reviewed for sanitation. The facility failed to ensure all items were labeled, dated with opened and pull dates, and discarded prior to their use-by date. The facility failed to ensure hot foods were served at > or = 135° F. The facility failed to ensure the blender was washed with soap prior to reusing it. The facility failed to ensure the kitchen's drains were free from standing water. These failures placed residents at risk for foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly for 3 of 3 dumpsters reviewed for proper garbage disposal. The facility failed to ensure the dumpsters were closed and that the area around the dumpsters was free from trash and debris. This failure placed residents at risk of encountering pests and rodents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment, that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, for 1 resident (Resident #16) of 2 residents reviewed for dignity issues. The facility failed to put a privacy bag on the foley catheter drainage bag for Resident #16, leaving the urine in the bag visually exposed. This failure could place residents at risk of feeling uncomfortable and disrespected and could decrease residents' self-esteem and/or quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to self-administer medications if the Interdisciplinary Team determined the practice was clinically appropriate for one ( Resident #171) of two residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility failed to ensure Resident #171 did not have medications prescribed by physician in her room. These failures could place residents at risk for injuries, illness, and hospitalization.
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 2 (Resident #46 and Resident #173) out of 14 reviewed for call lights in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #46's and Resident #173's call lights were within reach. This failure could affect all residents who needed assistance with activities of daily and could result in needs not being met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents unable to conduct activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for three of eight residents (Residents #29, Resident #46, and Resident #174) reviewed for quality of life. The facility failed to ensure Resident #29, Resident #46 and Resident #174's nails were cleaned. These failures could place residents at risk for poor hygiene, dignity issues, and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained free of accidents and hazards as possible for 2 (Resident #28 and Resident #67) of 8 residents reviewed for accidents and supervision. The facility failed to ensure the Housekeeping Supervisor and Housekeeper G had a lock on the compartment where chemicals were stored on two of three housekeeping carts. The facility failed to ensure Housekeeper H had a key to lock the compartment where chemicals were stored on one of three housekeeping cart. Resident #28 and Resident #67 were within five feet of the housekeeping carts unsupervised. These failures could place residents at risk for injuries, illness, and hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who was fed by enteral means received appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #63) reviewed for feeding tubes in that: The facility failed to ensure RN A properly checked for residual prior to administering medications to Resident #63's gastrostomy tube or feeding tube. This deficient practice could place residents who received medications via a gastrostomy tube at risk for medical complications or a decline in health.
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 2 of 8 residents (Resident #12 and Resident #16) reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure the Assistant Director of Nurses sanitized or wash her hands after touching contaminated items when feeding Resident #12. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #16's catheter tubing did not drag on the floor. This failure could place residents at risk of cross contamination which could result in physical illness and development/transmission of communicable diseases and infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents had the right to be free from neglect for one (Resident #1) out of three residents reviewed for neglect, in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's environment was safe and comfortable when she was left alone in a hot motorized van with the doors open for 14 minutes causing her to feel dizzy, thirsty, panicked, and the fearful she would lose consciousness. This failure placed residents at risk of experiencing helplessness, heat exhaustion, dehydration, and a decrease of self-worth.
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 one of one kitchen reviewed for food storage. The facility failed to ensure all items in the walk-in refrigerator were covered, labeled, dated, with use by date. The DM failed to ensure mechanically altered hot foods (foods that can be safely and successfully swallowed) prepared for a modified consistency diet of reached the temperate of 165 degrees Fahrenheit for at least 15 seconds. These failures could place residents at risk of foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to consider the views of a resident or family group and act promptly upon the grievances and recommendations of such groups concerning issues of resident care and life in the facility or to demonstrate their response and rationale for such response for one of one resident council. The facility had no procedure in place to maintain documentation of meeting notes, address grievances, concerns, or suggestions. This failure could place residents at risk of not exercising their rights and not having any agency or control over their own home.
11 fire safety citations on file: 7 on June 26, 2025, 4 on April 25, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| September 29, 2025 | Fine | $12,438 |
| July 23, 2025 | Fine | $17,131 |
| May 5, 2025 | Fine | $20,482 |
| September 27, 2023 | Fine | $25,530 |
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) | 2.69 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.51 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.34 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.59 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.58 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 56.1% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 62.5% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.34 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 2.83 on weekdays and 2.34 on weekends, 17% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 2.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 2.79 in April to June 2025 to 2.69 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 | 2.69 | 0.51 | 2.83 | 2.34 | 2.6% | 0 of 90 | 70 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.80 | 0.49 | 2.91 | 2.50 | 1.0% | 0 of 92 | 74 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.69 | 0.52 | 2.81 | 2.39 | 3.6% | 1 of 92 | 75 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 2.79 | 0.48 | 2.90 | 2.54 | 1.2% | 0 of 91 | 72 |
| 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 | 21.5 | 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 | 0.4 | 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 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.3 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.2 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.7 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 16.4 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.8 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Deer Creek Nursing and Rehabilitation's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (49.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
49.5% 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. 40 eligible stays.
10.3% 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. 67 eligible stays.
6.3% 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. 39 eligible stays.
46.0% 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. 37 residents counted.
2.0% 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. 51 residents counted.
4.7% 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. 51 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Texas98.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 20 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: UVALDE COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY. CMS links this home to Eduro Healthcare, a group of 34 nursing homes averaging 2.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rose, Linda | Corporate director | Individual | 09/01/2022 | |
| Valdez, Carla | Corporate director | Individual | 06/06/2025 | |
| Apolinar, Adam | Corporate officer | Individual | 07/23/2015 | |
| Contreras, Terri | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/29/2019 | |
| Wimberley Nursing and Rehab Center LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2022 | |
| Brasher, Shelly | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/12/2022 | |
| Contreras, Terri | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/29/2019 | |
| Rose, Linda | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2022 | |
| Valdez, Carla | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/06/2025 | |
| Bewsey, Michael | Individual is an owner, partner or trustee of any ADP of the SNF | Individual | 07/25/2025 | |
| Smv Wimberley LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 09/01/2022 | |
| Wimberley Nursing and Rehab Center LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/25/2025 | |
| Brasher, Shelly | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/12/2022 | |
| Castro Pou, Graciela | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2024 | |
| Contreras, Terri | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/29/2019 | |
| Rose, Linda | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2022 | |
| Valdez, Carla | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/06/2025 |
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.