5215 S Sugar Rd, Edinburg, TX 78539 · Hidalgo County · (956) 782-9666
120 certified beds, about 98 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1999
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675785 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 19, 2026, inspectors cited 3 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 32 health citations since November 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $16,565 in the last three years; the largest was $9,113, and the latest is dated January 1, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 2.81 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.16 of those hours.
35.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Wellsential Health, an affiliated group of 67 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 32 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for storage, preparation, and sanitation. The facility failed to ensure coffee cups and bowls were clean. The facility failed to ensure clean racks/trays of coffee cups and bowls had drying mats. The facility failed to ensure the dishwasher was in good working order. The facility failed to ensure the vent above the dishwasher was clean and without corrosion and rust. The facility failed to ensure the freezers did not have worn seals and ice accumulation inside of them. The facility failed to ensure the refrigerators did not have worn seals, bulging seals, and condensation inside of them. The facility failed to ensure the steam table wells were clean and free of rust. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records that were accurately documented for four of six residents (Resident #42, Resident #99, Resident #100, and Resident #97) reviewed for medical records. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #42's blood pressures were not duplicated for the month of May of 2026 by RN A and LVN B. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #99's blood pressures were not duplicated for the month of May of 2026 by RN A and LVN B. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #100's blood pressures were not duplicated for the month of May of 2026 by RN A and LVN B. 4. The facility failed to document Resident #97's physician order for a one-time dose of haloperidol injected on 04/02/2026. These failures could place residents at risk for errors in care and treatment.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to enact a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors to ensure safe and sanitary storage, handling and consumption for 1 (Resident #34) of 3 resident refrigerators reviewed for refrigerator sanitation. The facility failed to ensure Resident #34's personal refrigerator was maintained. Resident #34's personal refrigerator had 4 small individual cups of pudding, 5 small individual pies and a slice of bologna that all had best by dates that were expired. There was not a temperature thermometer inside her refrigerator. This failure could place residents who store food items in resident refrigerators, at risk of cross-contamination and food-borne illnesses if consumed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to have the interdisciplinary team review and revise the comprehensive care plan after the completion of the quarterly review assessments for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for care plan revision. The facility failed to complete a quarterly care plan for Resident #1. This failure could place the residents at risk of care and needs not being met.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident that were complete and accurately documented in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for medical records. 1. The facility failed to ensure LVN A documented accurate medication administration records for Resident #1 after medications and treatments were administered. 2. The facility failed to ensure LVN B documented accurate physician orders for Resident #2 after receiving telephone orders. This failure could place residents at risk for errors in care and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to conduct a comprehensive and accurate assessment of each resident using the resident assessment instrument (RAI) specified by CMS for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) whose records were reviewed for assessments. Resident #1's MDS erroneously indicated her ADLs of sit to stand or chair/bed-to-chair transfer were not attempted due to medical condition or safety concerns. This failure to ensure comprehensive and accurate assessments could affect residents by placing them at risk for not receiving correct care and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs, for 1 (Resident #5) of 6 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #5's care plan reflected his diet was no added salt, pureed texture, with nectar thickened liquids consistency. This failure could place the residents at risk of not receiving appropriate care to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain clinical records on each resident that were complete and accurately documented in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for accuracy and completeness of clinical records. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 had an order for EBP (refers to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and gloved use during high contact resident care activities). This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving nursing services by adequately trained nurses and could result in a decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 4 resident (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents and supervision who had a vehicle on the facility premises. The facility failed to evaluate R#1s safety awareness and risks for elopement after multiple incidents of R#1 leaving the facility without staff awareness or supervision. On 10/27/2025 R#1 left the facility and returned driving a vehicle he had purchased in another city. On 11/27/2025, R#1 left the facility and was returned by police due to driving around lost. On 12/06/2025, R#1 left the facility without being signed out on pass and was found at a nearby facility. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The Immediate Jeopardy was identified on 12/06/2025 and ended on 12/06/2025. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect or exploitation were reported no later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury to the State Survey Agency where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities in accordance with State law through established procedures for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1), reviewed for freedom from abuse, neglect, and exploitation. The facility failed to report to the State Survey Agency (HHSC) an incident that occurred on 11/27/25 in which Resident #1 was returned to the facility by a police officer. Resident #1 had been driving around town in his own vehicle and did not know his way back to the facility. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect the residents' rights to be free from abuse, neglect, and exploitation for four residents (Resident #2, Resident #6, Resident #9, and Resident #10) out of 5 residents reviewed for abuse. 1. The facility failed to protect Resident #6 and Resident #2 from both verbally and physically harming each other on [DATE]. Resident #6 and Resident #2 had a verbal altercation which turned physical on [DATE] in which Resident #6 ended up with a small skin tear to her hand. 2. The facility failed to protect Resident #2 and Resident #6 from both verbally and physically harming each other on [DATE]. Resident #2 and Resident #6 had a verbal altercation which turned physical on [DATE] in which Resident #2 ended up with a small scratch to her left arm. 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs for 3 of 5 residents (Resident #6, Resident #2, and Resident #5) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop care plans for Resident #6 and Resident #2 to include previous verbal altercations in the months leading up to when the physical altercations began between Resident #6 and Resident #2. The facility failed to include wound care for Resident #5's care plan for her surgical wound. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving person-centered care and/or services to meet their physical and/or psychosocial needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 (Resident #5) of 5 residents reviewed for MDS assessment. Resident #5's MDS admission assessment dated [DATE] failed to indicate Resident #5 had a fall that resulted in major injury. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for inadequate care and services to meet their needs based on inaccurate MDS assessments.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices complete and accurately documented medical records for 1 (Resident #7) of 10 residents whose records were reviewed. Clinical medical staff failed to ensure that Resident #7 suprapubic catheter output log was accurately documented as order by her physician. This failure could place residents of having incomplete and inaccurate records which could impact their treatment and health when receiving suprapubic catheter care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for medication errors. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's blood pressure/pulse altering medications (Midodrine) was not given outside of the scheduled time parameters for the month of November 2025 per the physician's orders. This failure could place residents at an increased risk for complications such as decreased blood pressure, decreased pulse, exacerbation of symptoms and disease process, and potential hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, maintain clinical medical records on each resident that were complete and accurately documented for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for medical records. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's vital signs were documented in the MAR from 10/01/25 to 10/24/25. This failure could place residents at risk for errors in care and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for sanitation in that: The facility failed to ensure the juice nozzle was clean. The facility failed to ensure food in the refrigerator was not expired. These failures could place residents at risk of foodborne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to conduct an assessment of each resident's functional capacity for 1 (Resident # 1) of 8 residents reviewed for resident assessments. The facility failed to complete the MDS discharge assessment for Resident #1. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving care and services to meet their needs.
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 included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial need that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #87) reviewed for comprehensive person-centered care plans. The facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #87 to address identifiable triggers to his active diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (a disorder in which a person had difficulty after experienceing or witnessing a terrifying event). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needed respiratory was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #47) reviewed for respiratory care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #47's oxygen was administered at 3 lpm instead of 5 lpm as ordered. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #47 ' s oxygenator humidifier was not empty. These failures could place residents at risk of developing respiratory complications, having a decreased quality of care and expose residents to hazards such as explosions which could lead to physical harm.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet residents' physical, mental, and psychosocial needs, for 1 resident (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility did not care plan Resident #1's refusal of care to include shower refusals. These failures could place residents at risk for not receiving necessary care and services. The non-compliance was identified as past non-compliance. The deficient practice began on 11/25/2024 and ended on 12/18/2024. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record reviews, 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 2 (Resident #416 and Resident #414) out of 6 residents reviewed for care plans in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #416 and #414 had a baseline care plan created within 48 hours after admission with goals and interventions. This deficient practice affects residents who are new admissions or readmissions and could result in decreased quality of care.
Inspectors wroteF656 Care Plan Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and time frames to meet resident's mental and psychosocial needs, for one (Resident #54) of six residents reviewed for care plans in that: The facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that addressed Resident #54's behavior of going out on pass without signing out. This failure could place residents in the facility at risk of not receiving the necessary care and services to maintain their health and safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feedings for 1 (Resident #87) of 3 residents reviewed for enteral nutrition, in that: The facility failed to appropriately label the formula bag with the time and the date the formula was started and initials of the nurse who hung the feeding for Resident #87. This deficient practice could affect residents receiving enteral nutrition and place them at risk of health complications and decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care was provided with such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #416) reviewed for respiratory care in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #416 had an oxygen sign posted outside her bedroom. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for inadequate care.
Inspectors wroteRecord review of Resident #11's admission record dated 10/25/23 documented a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 09/20/23. The form further documented Resident #11 with diagnoses including, unspecified dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interfere with daily functioning), muscle wasting and atrophy (a decrease of muscle mass and strength), age-related physical debility (group of symptoms related to age that cause frailty), lack of coordination (group of symptoms that cause impaired direction) , and unspecified hearing loss (inability to hear). Resident #11 was not identified as her own responsible party. Record review of Resident #11's quarterly minimum data set (MDS) revealed a BIMS score of 99 indicating severe cognitive impairment. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services including procedures that ensure the accurate administering of all drugs and biologicals, to meet the needs of 4 of 4 (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4) residents reviewed for pharmacy services. Staff D and Staff E failed to accurately document on eMAR they administered Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, and Resident #4's scheduled medications: Resident #1: Systane, Atorvastatin Calcium, Erythromycin ointment, GenTeal ointment, Trazodone, Doxycycline, Hydralazine, Meclizine, Mexitrol, Keppra, MiraLAX, and Thiamine. Resident #2: Carvedilol, Levetiracetam, Metformin, Artificial Tears, and Ticagrelor. Resident #3: Divalproex Sodium, Mirtazapine, Trazodone, and Zoloft. Resident #4: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on Observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment for 1 of 1 (Resident #30 reviewed for the environment in that: The facility did not secure a bottle of liquid disinfectant; R #30 was found with liquid disinfectant in his possession and near his mouth. This failure could place residents at risk of living in an unsafe, unsanitary, and uncomfortable environment
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement written policies and procedures to prohibit and prevent abuse and neglect for 1 of 1 resident (R #30) reviewed for incident reporting. The facility failed implement their policy and did not report an allegation of neglect for R #30 for an incident on 06/19/23. This failure could place residents at risk of abuse, neglect, and not having incidents reported appropriately.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, or mistreatment, were reported immediately to the State Survey Agency, within two hours if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, for 1 of 1 resident (R #30) reviewed for abuse/neglect. The facility failed to report allegations of resident neglect for R #30 for an incident on 06/19/23 to the State Survey Agency within the allotted time frame. This failure could place all residents at increased risk for potential abuse due to unreported allegations of abuse and neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to have evidence that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, or mistreatment, were thoroughly investigated for 1 of 1 resident (R #30) reviewed for abuse/neglect. The facility failed to thoroughly investigate an alleged violation of neglect when R #30 was found with a bottle of liquid disinfectant in his possession near his mouth. This failure could place all residents at increased risk for potential neglect due to uninvestigated allegations of abuse and neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their established smoking policy for 4 of 4 smoking area (Resident # 5, Resident #6, Resident #9 and Resident #10) residents reviewed for smoking. The facility did not follow their policy regarding residents that smoke must be always supervised. Residents R#5, R#6, R#9, R#10 were observed smoking outside without staff supervision. This failure could place residents at risk for smoking-related injuries and fires in the facility.
4 fire safety citations on file: 1 on May 19, 2026, 2 on April 2, 2025, 1 on January 18, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 1, 2026 | Fine | $9,113 |
| November 21, 2023 | Fine | $7,452 |
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) | 2.81 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.16 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.53 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.76 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.89 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 35.8% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.31 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 2.93 on weekdays and 2.53 on weekends, 14% 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 2.79 in April to June 2025 to 2.81 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 | 2.81 | 0.16 | 2.93 | 2.53 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 98 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.84 | 0.16 | 2.94 | 2.58 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 96 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.76 | 0.14 | 2.88 | 2.46 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 95 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 2.79 | 0.18 | 2.90 | 2.52 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 94 |
| 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.
Trains nurse aides: this home runs a state-approved CNA program (state list: HHSC Approved NATCEP Providers, as of October 6, 2026). A nursing home cannot charge aides it employs, or has offered a job, for state-approved training (42 CFR 483.152(c)). See Edinburg Nursing and Rehabilitation Center CNA training on CareerFunded, our sister site for career training.
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 | 7.1 | 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 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.6 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.5 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Edinburg Nursing and Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (48.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
48.1% 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. 36 eligible stays.
11.3% 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. 37 eligible stays.
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 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. 23 eligible stays.
54.2% 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. 24 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. 34 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. 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. 11 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: VAL VERDE COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Wellsential Health, a group of 67 nursing homes averaging 2.7 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Val Verde County Hospital District | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 04/01/2022 |
| Regency IHS of Edinburg LLC | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2022 | |
| Csv Rhea Management Holdco, LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2022 | |
| Dwd Tx Holdings LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2022 | |
| Jack and Nancy Dwyer Workforce Development Center Inc | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2022 | |
| Reg Leased Opco LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2022 | |
| Reg Operator Holdco LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2022 | |
| Regency Integrated Health Services LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2022 | |
| Regency Texas Holdings LLC | Indirect ownership interest | Organization | 04/01/2022 | |
| Baird, Daniel | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/13/2021 | |
| Carvajal, Antonio | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/16/2024 | |
| Clapp, Barbara | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/01/2021 | |
| Cortese, Daren | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/10/2021 | |
| Diaz, Cris | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/25/2022 | |
| Gibson, Patricia | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/01/2021 | |
| Gonzales, Veronica | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/16/2024 | |
| Jurado, Jorge | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 10/13/2023 | |
| Kaufman, Nicole | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/10/2021 | |
| Otazo, Julio | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/25/2022 | |
| Palmer, Robin | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/18/2020 | |
| Calderon, Javier | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/29/2024 | |
| Chartrand, Daniel | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/19/2014 | |
| Gomez, Seferino | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/29/2024 | |
| Jurado, Jorge | Corporate officer | Individual | 10/13/2023 | |
| Keenen, Lee | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/25/2022 | |
| Otazo, Julio | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/25/2022 | |
| Regency IHS of Edinburg LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2022 | |
| Regency Integrated Health Services LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2022 | |
| Val Verde County Hospital District | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2022 | |
| Dekowski, Donovan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Garza, Christina | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Jurado, Jorge | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/13/2023 | |
| 5215 South Sugar Road LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2022 | |
| Regency IHS Clinical Consulting, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2022 | |
| Regency IHS of Edinburg LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/17/2025 | |
| Regency IHS Rehab LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2022 | |
| Regency Integrated Health Services LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/17/2025 | |
| Val Verde County Hospital District | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 06/17/2025 | |
| Dekowski, Donovan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Garza, Christina | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Hernandez, Sandra | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Martinez, Arturo | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Rodriguez, Karina | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2025 |
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.