12042 Bittern Hollow, Austin, TX 78758 · Travis County · (512) 730-2100
110 certified beds, about 91 residents a day · Government - Hospital district · Medicare and Medicaid since 2002
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675914 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 5, 2026, inspectors cited 2 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
None of its 10 health citations since January 2024 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.50 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.52 of those hours.
45.5% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Caring Healthcare Group, an affiliated group of 14 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 10 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received necessary services to maintain oral hygiene for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #74) reviewed for grooming. The facility failed to provide ADL oral care to Resident #74. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of decline in their oral health and psychological well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure in accordance with state and federal laws, all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments for 2 (medication cart #1 and medication cart #2) of 2 medication carts reviewed for medication storage. The facility failed to ensure that MC #1 and MC #2 was locked when staff were not present on 06/03/2026. This failure could place residents at risk at having access to unauthorized medication, resulting in potential harm or drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to treat each resident 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 3 of 10 residents (Resident #12, Resident #81, and Resident #93) reviewed for rights. The facility failed to ensure CNA D and RA C knocked on Resident #12's, Resident #81's, and Resident #93's door when going into the residents' rooms. The deficient practice could place residents at risk of feeling like their privacy was being invaded or the facility was not their home.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure the facility established and maintained an infection prevention program designed to provide a safe environment and to help prevent the transmission of communicable diseases for 3 of 5 staff (LVN A, MA B and Certified Nurse Aide D ) observed for infection control LVN A and MA B failed to disinfect the blood pressure cuff while using it on Residents #94, Residents #19 , Residents #39 , Residents #301. The facility failed to ensure Certified Nurse Aide D conducted hand hygiene in between feeding assistants of residents during dining. These failures could place residents at increased risk of healthcare associated infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to establish an infection and prevention and control program that included, at a minimum, an antibiotic stewardship program that included antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic use for 3 of 8 residents (Residents #48, #52, and #95) reviewed for antibiotic stewardship program. The facility failed to follow the antibiotic stewardship policy for Residents #48, #52, and #95 by not ensuring an infection surveillance form was completed to ensure the appropriateness of the antibiotic per facility policy. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for unnecessary antibiotic use, inappropriate antibiotic use, and increased multi drug resistant organisms.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #95) reviewed for unnecessary drugs. The facility failed to ensure Resident #95 had a duration for antibiotic therapy. This failure could place residents at risk of nausea, diarrhea, and multi-drug resistant organisms.
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 food and nutrition services. 1. The facility failed to ensure all foods were stored off the ground. 2. The facility failed to ensure all foods were dated with an opened date and discarded prior to their best-if-used-by date. 3. The facility failed to ensure the Dietary Manager wore a hair restraint which properly covered her hair. 4. The facility failed to ensure DW I washed dishes using sanitizer water at a PPM of 50 or greater. These failures placed residents at risk for foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, for 2 of 8 residents (Resident #12 and Resident #288) reviewed for resident rights. 1. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #12 had full visual privacy providing a functioning ceiling hung curtain that surrounded his bed. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #228's privacy by providing a privacy bag to shield his catheter bag from view. These failures placed residents at risk of diminished quality of life and embarrassment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 (Resident #28) of 8 residents reviewed for quality of care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #28 received weekly skin assessments. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #28 was turned frequently per her care plan interventions. These failures placed residents at risk of skin breakdown.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to be adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff assistance from a resident's private bathroom through a communication system, which relays the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area, while lying on the floor for 3 of 5 residents (Residents #7, #12, and Resident #62) reviewed for physical environment. The facility failed to ensure the call light pull string in a Residents #7, #12, and #62's bathroom stretched its intended length from the junction box to the floor.; therefore, ensuring each resident had the least distance between their hands and the call light pull string. This failure placed residents at risk of having their needs unmet and not being able to reach the call light pull string during an emergency in the restroom.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
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) | 3.50 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.52 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.26 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.26 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.72 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 45.5% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 55.6% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.38 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 3.60 on weekdays and 3.26 on weekends, 9% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.2% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.43 in April to June 2025 to 3.50 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 | 3.50 | 0.52 | 3.60 | 3.26 | 0.2% | 0 of 90 | 91 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.41 | 0.39 | 3.53 | 3.10 | 0.7% | 0 of 92 | 92 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.26 | 0.26 | 3.37 | 2.97 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 93 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.43 | 0.34 | 3.59 | 3.05 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 93 |
| 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 | 25.3 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 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 | 2.6 | 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 | 9.8 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.0 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 12.0 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.1 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.0 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.2 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Gracy Woods II Living Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (41.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
41.7% 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. 38 eligible stays.
11.9% 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.
7.3% 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. 38 eligible stays.
47.4% this home
Median of homes: Texas57.3% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 38 residents counted.
2.3% 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. 43 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. 43 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. 19 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: CORYELL COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY. CMS links this home to Caring Healthcare Group, a group of 14 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Byrom, David | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| Byrom, David | Corporate director | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| Coryell County Memorial Hospital Authority | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2017 | |
| Gracy Woods Healthcare LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2017 | |
| Shapiro, Menachem | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2017 |
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.