3333 Bob Rogers Drive, Eagle Pass, TX 78852 · Maverick County · (830) 213-8138
104 certified beds, about 96 residents a day · Government - Hospital district · Medicare and Medicaid since 2017
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 676419 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 10, 2025, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 24 health citations since July 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $14,069 in the last three years; the largest was $14,069, and the latest is dated May 15, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.12 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.35 of those hours.
95.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Creative Solutions in Healthcare, an affiliated group of 149 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 24 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were seen by a physician at least once every 30 days for the first 90 days after admission for 4 of 4 residents (Resident #10, #11, #12, #91) and at least once every 60 days thereafter for 10 of 22 residents (Resident #1, #2, #3, #7,#9, #13, #20, #29, #67, #94) reviewed for physician services. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #10 was seen by the physician every month for the first three months since admission on [DATE].2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #11 was seen by the physician every month for the first three months since admission on [DATE].3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #12 was seen by the physician every month for the first three months since admission on [DATE].4. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 5of 7 residents (Resident #1, Resident #20, Resident #32, Resident #100, and Resident #10) who were reviewed for resident assessments. 1. The facility failed to accurately documents Resident #1's skin conditions on his significant change MDS. 2. The facility failed to document Resident #20's use of pain medication and antiplatelet medication on the quarterly MDS assessment. 3. The facility failed to document Resident #32's use of antidepressant medication and antiplatelet medication on the quarterly MDS assessment. 4. The facility failed to document Resident #100's use of antidepressant medication on the quarterly MDS assessment. 5. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive for 1 of 12 residents (Resident #75) reviewed for advanced directives. Resident #75's OOH-DNR was missing a physician's signature and was therefore invalid. This deficient practice could place residents at-risk of having their end of life wishes dishonored and of having CPR performed against their will.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to consult with the resident's physician when there was a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status (that is, a deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications) for 1 (Resident #7) of 7 residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to notify Resident #7's physician of her change of condition when LVN G documented on 9/1/25, 9/15/25, and 9/22/25 the resident had bruising to multiple areas and did not notify the physician. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk for a delay in medical treatment, decline in health, and death.
Inspectors wroteRecord review of the admission Record, dated 9/26/25, reflected Resident #7 was a [AGE] year-old female originally admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis that included sepsis (the body's extreme response to an infection), age related cognitive decline, atherosclerotic (A buildup of cholesterol plaque in the walls of arteries causing obstruction of blood flow) heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris, and dementia (impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities) with mood disturbance. Record review of Resident #7's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 9/2/25, revealed her memory was severely impaired for daily decision making. Section N revealed she was taking an anticoagulant (medication that stops your blood from clotting easily). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to, in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, have evidence that all alleged violations are thoroughly investigated and report the results of all investigations to the state survey agency within five working days of the incident for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #7) reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility failed to investigate when Resident #7 had bruising to both her arms and could not state how they happened. This deficient practice placed all residents at risk of harm from neglect due to not having a thorough investigation. The findings Include: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the services provided or arranged by the facility, as outlined by the comprehensive care plan, meet professional standards of quality for 1 of 7 residents (Residents #7) reviewed for following physician orders. The facility failed to obtain all 3-guaiac test (also known as the fecal occult blood test (FOBT), is used to detect hidden (occult) blood in stool samples) ordered for Resident #7 on 5/13/25 and report new onset bruising to the physician as directed in the physician orders and care plan. These failures could place the residents at risk of not having their individual needs met and of not receiving adequate care and medical interventions to maintain their health and prevent worsening health conditions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure drug records were in order and that an account of all controlled drugs was maintained and periodically reconciled for 2 of 6 carts (the 500/600 hall PO cart and the 100/200/600 hall PO cart) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure the controlled substance reconciliation logs were signed for accuracy of medication quantities during shift change. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving their prescribed medications, experiencing untreated pain and anxiety, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 2 of 6 medication carts (the 300/400 hall PO cart and the 500/600 hall PO cart) assessed for medication storage and labeling. 1. The facility failed to ensure all medications located inside the 300/400 hall PO cart were stored in labeled containers.2. The facility failed to ensure the 500/600 hall PO cart was locked and secured. These failures could place residents at risk of receiving inadequate treatments or ingesting medications for which they were not prescribed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review revealed the facility failed to promptly notify the ordering physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner or clinical nurse specialist of results that fall outside of clinical reference ranges in accordance with facility policies and procedures for notification of a practitioner or per the ordering physician's orders for 1 of 7 Residents (Resident #7) whose records were reviewed for lab services. 1. The facility failed to report to Resident #7's physician and document abnormal laboratory results on 4/11/25. This deficient practice could affect any resident and contribute to residents' decline of health condition by not providing the physician information necessary to be informed decisions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, 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 nourishment room fridges. The nourishment room had undated opened items in the fridge. This deficient practice could place residents who ate food from the nourishment room fridge at risk for foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infection for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #90) reviewed for infection control: The facility failed to ensure staff maintained proper hand hygiene during wound care on Resident #90. These failures could place residents at-risk for infection due to improper care practices.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for abuse, in that: The facility failed to supervise and protect Resident #2, who did not have the ability to consent, from harm when Resident #1, on 3/27/25, was observed leaning over Resident #2's bed with his hand under her brief touching her genital area. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified as past noncompliance. The noncompliance began on 03/27/25 and ended on 03/29/25. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. A PNC IJ template was presented to the Director of Nursing at 5:45 pm on 05/15/25. These deficient practices placed residents at risk of psychosocial harm and continued abuse.
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 enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for 2 of 3 Residents (Resident #4 and Resident #5) who were interviewed regarding the method of transportation used to take them to doctor's appointments. 1. Resident #4 stated that the van driver had taken her in her wheelchair instead of the van across the street from the facility for a doctor's appointment which created pain in her knees. 2. Resident #5 was also wheeled across the street in her wheelchair for a doctor's appointment which embarrassed her. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation for 1 resident (Resident #3) reviewed for misappropriation. The facility failed to prevent misappropriation of property when HSK B took money via cash app directly from a bank card from Resident #3 in the amount of $891. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance. The noncompliance began on 09/30/24 and ended on 10/01/24. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could place residents at risk of misappropriation which could lead to further exploitation of other residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility assessments failed to ensure that the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for two residents (Resident #42 and #84) of 24 residents reviewed for assessments. 1. Resident #42's cardiac pacemaker was not identified as an active diagnosis on his quarterly MDS assessment with an ARD of 07/09/2024. 2. Resident #84's falls since admission were not reflected on her quarterly MDS assessment with an ARD of 08/09/2024. These failures placed residents at risk for missed or inaccurate care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's choices for one resident (Resident #42) out of 24 residents reviewed for quality of care. RN C did not perform an apical pulse for Resident #42 in August 2024 as ordered to check the function of his cardiac pacemaker. This deficient practice could affect residents with cardiac pacemakers and could result in dysrhythmias (irregular heartbeats).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection 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 resident (Resident #8) of 4 observed for peri care and wound care in that: CNA D and RN C failed to sanitize their hands between glove changes while performing peri care and wound care for Resident #8. These failures could result in cross contamination of germs and could result in an infection or hospitalization.
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 kitchen sanitation in that: 1. The facility failed to maintain the cleanliness of the ice maker found within the kitchen 2. The facility failed to label and date food containers found within the kitchen. 3. The facility failed to complete daily temperature logs of reach-in refrigerators and freezers found within the kitchen and nourishment room. 4. The facility failed to ensure the walk-in freezer and nourishment room freezer maintained a temperature below 0 degrees Fahrenheit. These failures could place residents at risk for cross-contamination and foodborne illnesses.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living were provided with the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene for one (Resident #53) of six residents reviewed for ADL care, in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #52 was provided bathing as scheduled. This failure could place residents who require assistance from staff for personal hygiene at risk of not receiving care and services to meet their needs and not reaching their highest practicable physical and psychosocial well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that it was free of medication error rate of 5 percent or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 7.14%, based on 2 errors out of 28 opportunities, which involved 2 of 7 residents (Resident #44 and #29) reviewed for medication administration in that: 1. RN E failed to administer Resident #44's Furosemide (a diuretic used to treat swelling caused by fluid retention) as ordered. 2. RN F administered Resident #29's Nifedipine (used to treat high blood pressure) extended-release medication in crushed form instead of whole. These failures could place residents at risk for not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of their medications or receiving them as prescribed, per physician orders.
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 4 of 8 residents (Resident #18, #44, #70 and #36) reviewed for infection control practices, in that: During the medication pass, RN E failed to: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible for 1 of 3 Residents (Resident #49) reviewed for accidents and hazards, in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #49 did not keep cigarettes in her room. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of harm or injury and contribute to avoidable accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident, for 1 of 6 Residents (Resident #49) reviewed for medication administration in that: Resident #49 was observed with a medication cup identified as cough syrup at the bedside. This deficient practice could affect residents who received medication and place them at risk of not receiving the appropriate amount of medication and could results in an adverse reaction or a decline in health.
3 fire safety citations on file: 2 on December 10, 2025, 1 on August 23, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 15, 2025 | Fine | $14,069 |
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) | 3.12 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.35 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.76 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.96 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.81 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 95.1% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 100.0% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.33 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 3.27 on weekdays and 2.76 on weekends, 16% 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 3.03 in April to June 2025 to 3.12 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 | 3.12 | 0.35 | 3.27 | 2.76 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 96 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.24 | 0.31 | 3.38 | 2.86 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 94 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.37 | 0.31 | 3.55 | 2.90 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 96 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.03 | 0.25 | 3.22 | 2.54 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 92 |
| 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 | 23.1 | 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 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 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 | 4.3 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.1 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.9 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 15.1 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.5 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.9 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for La Hacienda De Paz Rehabilitation and Care Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (48.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
48.6% 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. 54 eligible stays.
10.9% 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. 56 eligible stays.
8.7% 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. 34 eligible stays.
50.0% 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. 22 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. 33 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. 33 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. 12 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: WEST WHARTON COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Creative Solutions in Healthcare, a group of 149 nursing homes averaging 2.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| West Wharton County Hospital District | Direct ownership interest | Organization | 09/01/2022 | |
| Bowers, Sean | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 07/01/2024 | |
| Cisneros, Alfred | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 02/18/2008 | |
| Cobb, Travis | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 10/05/2022 | |
| Cooper, Stephen | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/11/2022 | |
| Hardin, Sherrie | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/04/2024 | |
| Kerzee, Richard | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/24/2007 | |
| Korenek, Patricia | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/05/2018 | |
| Soechting, Paul | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 11/22/2024 | |
| Strack, Joe | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 02/11/2022 | |
| Huggins, Linda | Corporate director | Individual | 09/01/2022 | |
| Willig, Zachary | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2025 | |
| Thompson, Johnny | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Eagle Pass II Enterprises, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 09/01/2022 | |
| Blake, Gary | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2022 | |
| Blake, Malisa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/01/2022 | |
| Eagle Pass II Enterprises, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/09/2025 | |
| Eagle Pass II Realty, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/18/2024 | |
| Blake, Gary | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2022 | |
| Blake, Malisa | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/18/2024 | |
| Eamiguel, Christopher | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/18/2024 | |
| Jimenez, Raquenet | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/28/2025 | |
| Valdez, Victoriano | 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.