9738 Westover Hills Blvd, San Antonio, TX 78251 · Bexar County · (210) 305-5730
140 certified beds, about 113 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2013
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 676328 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on December 3, 2025, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 39 health citations since July 2023, 4 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (4 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $38,630 in the last three years; the largest was $25,233, and the latest is dated August 6, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.34 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.44 of those hours.
43.9% 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 39 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observation, and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, that include measurable objectives and time frames to meet residents' mental, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment and to ensure that the comprehensive care plan described the services that were to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, including the right to refuse treatment for 2 of 9 residents (Residents #1 and #2) reviewed for care plans. Residents #1 and #2's care plans reflected contractures. This failure could place residents at risk by not having their needs met and not receiving appropriate care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to accurately reflect the residents' status for 4 residents (Residents #43, # 62, 75 and #106) of 32 residents reviewed for MDS assessments. Resident #43's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] inaccurately reflected that she took an anticoagulant and did not reflect that she took an antiplatelet medication. 2. Resident #62's psychoactive and antiplatelet medications were not reflected on her quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE]. 3. Resident #75's fall on 05/22/2025 was not reflected on her annual MDS assessment dated [DATE]. 4. The facility failed to ensure Resident #106's planned discharge was coded accurately. These facility failures affect residents who receive care and could result in missed or inappropriate care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 3 residents (Resident #37, #62 and #75) of 32 residents reviewed for care plans. 1. Resident #37's comprehensive care plan did not reflect that she required a leg strap to hold her indwelling catheter tubing in place. 2. Resident #62's comprehensive care plan did not reflect she had hypothyroidism as an active diagnosis or her use of an antiplatelet medication. 3. Resident 75's comprehensive care plan did not reflect that she had electronic monitoring in her room. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and records reviews the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, including tracheostomy care and tracheal suctioning, is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals and preference for 4 residents (Resident #35, Resident #43, Resident #45, and Resident #62) of 4 residents observed for oxygen therapy.1. The Facility failed to ensure Resident #35 had an order for the use of oxygen with the liters per minute to be used.2. Resident #43 was observed in the dining room with a portable oxygen tank set on 2L/min via NC and the pressure gauge needle was in the red zone (which indicated near empty or empty and requires immediate attention).3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop, implement, and maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff for 19 of 24 (Administrator, DON, Dietary Manager, Activity Director, Social Worker, LVN G, LVN L, CNA M, CNA N, CNA O, Restorative Aide P, CNA Q, CNA R, CNA S, CNA T, RN U, RN V, LVN W, and ADON X) employees reviewed for training requirements. The facility failed to implement and maintain a training program that ensured Social Worker, Dietary Manager and Restorative Aide P received required trainings upon hire. The facility failed to implement and maintain a training program that ensured Administrator, DON, Activity Director, LVN G, LVN L, CNA M, CNA N, CNA O, CNA Q, CNA R, CNA S, CNA T, RN U, RN V, LVN W, and ADON X received required training annually. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure QAPI training was completed by new and existing staff for 19 of 24 (Administrator, DON, Dietary Manager, Activity Director, Social Worker, LVN G, LVN L, CNA M, CNA N, CNA O, Restorative Aide P, CNA Q, CNA R, CNA S, CNA T, RN U, RN V, LVN W, and ADON X) employees reviewed for training requirements. The facility failed to provide QAPI training was completed by Social Worker, Dietary Manager and Restorative Aide P upon hire. The facility failed to provide QAPI training was completed by Administrator, DON, Activity Director, LVN G, LVN L, CNA M, CNA N, CNA O, CNA Q, CNA R, CNA S, CNA T, RN U, RN V, LVN W, and ADON X annually. This failure could place residents at risk of being cared for by staff who have been insufficiently trained.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure ethics training was completed by new and existing staff for 19 of 24 (Administrator, DON, Dietary Manager, Activity Director, Social Worker, LVN G, LVN L, CNA M, CNA N, CNA O, Restorative Aide P, CNA Q, CNA R, CNA S, CNA T, RN U, RN V, LVN W, and ADON X) employees reviewed for training requirements. The facility failed to ensure ethics training was completed by Social Worker, Dietary Manager and Restorative Aide P upon hire. The facility failed to ensure ethics training was completed by Administrator, DON, Activity Director, LVN G, LVN L, CNA M, CNA N, CNA O, CNA Q, CNA R, CNA S, CNA T, RN U, RN V, LVN W, and ADON X annually. This failure could place residents at risk of being cared for by staff who have been insufficiently trained.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure CNAs received the required minimum 12 hours annual in-services for 7 of 7 (CNA M, CNA N, CNA O, CNA Q, CNA R, CNA S, CNA T) CNAs reviewed for trainings requirements. The facility failed to provide the required 12 hours of annual training to CNA M, CNA N, CNA O, CNA Q, CNA R, CNA S, CNA T. This failure could place residents at risk of being cared for by staff who have been insufficiently trained.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident who is incontinent of bladder receives appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible for 1 resident (Resident #37) of 3 residents observed with indwelling urinary catheter care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #37 had an indwelling urinary catheter leg strap. This facility failure affects residents with indwelling urinary catheter's and could result in pain, inflammation, dislodgement, and urinary tract infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to store medications under appropriate conditions of sanitation, temperature, light, moisture, ventilation, segregation, and security for 1 (200-A unit) of 4 medication carts reviewed for storage. In 200-A unit nursing cart, Resident #47's brand-new eye drop (Latanoprost) was stored at the room temperature on [DATE], but per the label of the eye drop indicated refrigerate. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving therapeutic effects by using medications that were not refrigerated.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that are complete and accurately documented for 1 of 32 residents (Resident #75) reviewed for accuracy of medical records. The facility failed to ensure Resident #75's oxygen therapy was documented on her MAR. This deficient practice could affect residents whose records are maintained by the facility and could place them at risk for errors in care and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, 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 residents (Resident #57 and #88) of 32 residents observed for infection control. 1. CNA D failed to change her gloves and sanitize her hands between soiled and clean items when she performed incontinent care for Resident #57. 2. CNA C failed to change her gloves and sanitize her hands between soiled and clean items when she and CNA B performed incontinent care for Resident #88. These failures could affect residents and place them at risk for infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, and sanitary environment for 2 (Resident #37's room and Resident #8's room) out of 8 Residents' rooms reviewed, in that: 1. In Resident #37's restroom, the floor of the shower area was wet because the shower head was leaking water. 2. In Resident #8's restroom, there were human feces on the floor of the restroom. This deficient practice could result in residents living, staff working, and families visiting in an unsafe, unclean, and unpleasant environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment for 1 of 1 Beauty Shop, in that:The facility Beauty Shop was found unlocked on 11/25/25 and contained potentially harmful items. This deficient practice could result in residents living in an unsafe environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain medical records that were complete and accurately documented for 1 of 15 (Resident #1) residents reviewed, in that: Resident #1's diagnoses of Primary Osteoarthritis Left Shoulder, Primary Osteoarthritis Right Shoulder, and Polyneuropathy Unspecified were not listed on his face sheet. This failure could result in inadequate care due to incomplete and inaccurate medical records.
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 3 of 7 Residents (Resident #71, Resident #101 and Resident #64) who were observed for ADL care. 1. LVN A stood while feeding Resident #71 her lunch meal on 9/24/24 and on 9/25/24. 2. LVN A stood while feeding Resident #101 her lunch meal on 9/25/24. 3. LVN B held the door open while a CNA was talking to him about Resident #64 exposing him to anyone walking down the hallway on 9/26/24. These deficient practices could affect dependent residents and contribute to feelings of shame or feeling uncomfortable.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to post a notice of the availability of such reports (surveys, certifications, and complaint investigations) in areas of the facility that are prominent and accessible to the public for 3 of 4 days observed for required postings. The facility did not post a sign providing the location of the survey results binder. This deficient practice could affect any resident and result in residents not being informed of the survey results.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for 1 of 1 kitchen observed for food service. The facility failed to ensure that items stored in the walk-in in refrigerator were labeled. The Dietary Manager and Dietary Aide failed to wear beard restraints while working in the kitchen. Cook and Dietary Aide did not properly wear hair restraints in a way that covered all their hair. This failure could place residents who receive food prepared in the facility's only kitchen by placing them at risk for food-borne illness and food contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 5 residents (Residents #69, #90) and 1 of 1 rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER]), reviewed for infection control. 1. Resident #69 was provided wound care without EBP being used 2. Resident #90 was provided wound care from supplies that were open and kept in the same baggie, the staff made direct contact with the and gloves were not changed after, and the padding in the soiled brief contacted the wound when applying the dressing, and after the wound care was completed, the wound dressing was covered with the soiled brief while turning the resident. 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility is free of pests for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for physical environment. Multiple gnats were observed on resident food containers and flying around the facility. This failure places residents at risk of frustration, anxiety, and could result in the resident's not having a safe, sanitary environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure all Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Level 1 residents with mental illness were provided with a PASARR Level II Evaluation and Assessment for 1 of 3 residents (#71) reviewed for PASARR services. The facility failed to identify Resident #71 as having diagnoses indicative of Mental Illness including Schizoaffective Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder on the PASARR screening which would require a PASARR Level II assessment. This deficient practices could place residents at risk to a diminished quality of life related to not receiving or benefiting from specialized services. Review of Resident #71's face sheet, dated 9/27/24, revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including Dementia, Schizoaffective Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder, all dated 4/17/23. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident's baseline Care Plan to include the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for a resident for 1 of 6 Residents (Resident #160) whose records were reviewed. Nursing staff failed to include Resident #160 used two 1/4 side rails while in bed for mobility. This deficient practice could affect residents who used side rails and could result in residents not receiving the equipment they needed for mobility. The frindings were: Review of Resident #160's face sheet, dated 9/27/24, revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Other Malaise. Further review revealed Resident #160 had been in the facility 9 days. Review of Resident #160's EHR revealed an MDS had not been completed because it was not due until day 14 per RAI. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident received proper treatment and care to maintain mobility and good foot health, and provide foot care and treatment, in accordance with professional standards of practice, including to prevent complications from the resident's medical condition(s) and assist the resident in making appointments with a qualified person for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #52) reviewed for quality of care. Resident #52 did not see a podiatrist despite having thickened toenails and other foot concerns and the request of the resident's RP. This failure could place residents at risk of pain, difficulty wearing socks and or shoes, and could result in embarrassment, frustration, anxiety, and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #94), reviewed for quality of care. Resident #94's catheter care was not provided according to facility policy or standards of care. This failure could place resident's at risk of pain, anxiety, and could result in infection, illness, and a general decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who needed respiratory care, was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #79), reviewed for quality of care. Resident #79's oxygen nasal cannula was on the floor and not covered or protected from the elements. This failure could result in cross contamination and could result in infection, and illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review revealed the facility failed to ensure correct use of bed rails including but not limited to the following elements. Assess the resident for risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation and obtain informed consent prior to installation for 2 of 6 Residents (Resident #71 and Resident #160) whose records were reviewed. 1. Nursing staff failed to obtain an informed consent for the use of 1/4 bed rails for Resident #71. 2. Nursing staff failed to designate the reason for the use of the 1/4 bed rails on the bed evaluation for Resident #160 and failed to obtain an informed consent for the use the bed rails. These deficient practices could affect residents who used bed rails and could result residents not having required documentation in place for the use of bed rails.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record reviews,the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services including procedures that assure the accurate dispensing and administering of all drugs and biologicals to meet the needs of 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1). The facility failed to prevent Resident #1 from having a methadone overdose due to receiving incorrect medications. An IJ was identified on 8/4/2024. The IJ template was presented to the facility on 8/4/2024 at 7:02 PM. While the IJ was removed on 8/6/2024 at 8:03 PM, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of no actual harm due to the facilities need to continue to monitor the effectiveness of their plan. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of receiving incorrect medications resulting in hospitalization or death.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record reviews,the facility failed to ensure residents are free of any significant medication error for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1). The facility failed to prevent Resident #1 from having a methadone overdose due to receiving incorrect medications. An IJ was identified on 8/4/2024. The IJ template was presented to the facility on 8/4/2024 at 7:02PM. While the IJ was removed on 8/6/2024 at 8:03PM, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of no actual harm due to the facilities need to continue to monitor the effectiveness of their plan. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of receiving incorrect medications resulting in hospitalization or death.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to provide services that are furnished to maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 2 of 9 residents (#1 and #2) reviewed for care plans in that: 1. Resident #1's care plan did not indicate that she had a fall resulting in a shoulder fracture with interventions to include a sling to her left arm, fall mats and an orthopedic consult. 2. Resident #2's care plan did not indicate that she had a fall resulting in a finger fracture with interventions to include a finger splint. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not having needs identified and interventions established.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review the facility failed to consult with the physician when the resident experienced a change in condition for 1 of 1 resident (Residents #1) reviewed for a notification of a change of condition, in that; LVN A did not assess Resident #1 or notify the Physician of Resident #1's change in condition on 12/15/23 when Resident # 1's family member came to LVN A with concerns about the resident's catheter being plugged and abnormal confusion. On 12/22/2023 at 4:31 p.m., an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was Identified. While the IJ was removed on 12/23/2023, the facility remained out of compliance at a severity of actual harm but with potential for more than minimal harm and with a scope isolated due to the facility continuing to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of their plan of removal. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #1) reviewed quality of care in that: The facility failed to immediately assess Resident #1 or notify the physician when a change of condition was voiced by Resident #1's family member. On 12/22/2023 at 4:31 p.m., an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was Identified. While the IJ was removed on 12/23/2023, the facility remained out of compliance at a severity of actual harm but with potential for more than minimal harm and with a scope isolated due to the facility continuing to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of their plan of removal. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving the appropriate care and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and time frames to meet a resident's medical and nursing needs to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 2 of 16 residents (Resident #8 and Resident #10) reviewed for care plans in that: 1. Resident #8's comprehensive care plan did not address the residents past medical history of Diabetes Mellitus 2. (Type 2 diabetes is a condition that happens because of a problem in the way the body regulates and uses sugar as a fuel. That sugar also is called glucose. This long-term condition results in too much sugar circulating in the blood. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents for 1 of 16 (Resident #10) residents reviewed in that: The facility failed to ensure that Resident #10's call light was within reach while she was in bed, on 12/05/2023 and 12/06/2023. This could affect residents who used their call light or desire to use the call light and place them at risk of not being able to notify staff of their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments for 1 of 16 residents (Resident #10), reviewed for care plan revisions, in that: The facility failed to ensure that Resident #10's care plan included an intervention, that was requested by Resident #10's Responsible Party (RP) to prevent further injury with falls. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for lack of coordination of services.
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 safety in the facility's only kitchen and one of two nourishment refrigerators. The facility failed to ensure food items were properly labeled and dated in one of one walk in refrigerator, one of one walk in freezer, one of one freezer portion of the nourishment refrigerator, the dry storage area and under the steam table. The facility also failed to have trash cans with foot pedals to ensure kitchen staff members were not touching items in the kitchen after they touched the trash can lid. These failures could affect Residents who received their meals from the facility's only kitchen and one of two nourishment pantries.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that are complete and accurately documented for 15 (Resident #2, Resident #4, Resident #13, Resident #22, Resident #24, Resident #29, Resident #35, Resident #39, Resident #44, Resident #47, Resident #48, Resident #49, Resident #62, Resident #92, Resident #152) of 15 reviewed for accuracy of medical records in that: Facility staff failed to accurately assess wounds and provide and/or document wound care for 15 residents with wounds. All 15 residents had blanks (not completed) on their treatment records (TAR) for physician wound care orders in the month of [DATE]. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to collaborate with hospice representatives and coordinate the hospice care planning process for each resident receiving hospice services, to ensure quality of care for the resident, ensuring communication with the hospice medical director, the resident's attending physician and others participating in the provision of care for 3 of 3 residents (Resident # 11, Resident # 15, and Resident # 23) reviewed for hospice services in that: The facility failed to maintain required hospice forms and documentation to ensure residents received adequate end-of-life care. This failure could place the residents who receive hospice services at-risk of receiving inadequate end-of-life care due to a lack of documentation, coordination of care and communication of resident needs.
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 of 1 resident (Resident #155) observed for peri care and catheter care and 1 of 7 staff (MA OO) observed for infection control: 1. CNA H failed to follow infection control requirements while performing peri care for Resident #155. 2. MA OO failed to sanitized the blood pressure cuff between 3 residents (Resident #27, Resident #37, and Resident #65) during medication administration. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the nursing staff were licensed for 1 of 7 staff (LVN H) reviewed for competencies. The facility failed to ensure LVN H was permitted to practice as a licensed vocational nurse. This failure could place residents at the facility at risk of not receiving care and services from staff who are properly trained.
6 fire safety citations on file: 3 on December 3, 2025, 1 on September 27, 2024, 2 on July 31, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| August 6, 2024 | Fine | $25,233 |
| December 11, 2023 | Fine | $13,397 |
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) | 3.34 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.44 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.05 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.02 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.88 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 43.9% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 35.7% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.35 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 3.46 on weekdays and 3.05 on weekends, 12% 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 3.58 in April to June 2025 to 3.34 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 | 3.34 | 0.44 | 3.46 | 3.05 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 113 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.58 | 0.42 | 3.67 | 3.36 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 104 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.83 | 0.55 | 3.96 | 3.51 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 100 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.58 | 0.45 | 3.68 | 3.33 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 102 |
| 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 | 21.0 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.4 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.0 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.3 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.0 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.9 | 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 Las Colinas of Westover's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (43.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
43.4% 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. 34 eligible stays.
9.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Texas: 0 better, 9 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 58 eligible stays.
6.7% 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. 35 eligible stays.
63.0% 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. 27 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. 44 residents counted.
6.6% 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. 44 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Texas98.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 10 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: MEDINA COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Caring Healthcare Group, a group of 14 nursing homes averaging 2.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medina County Hospital District | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 03/31/2017 |
| Bell, Billie | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 06/03/2023 | |
| Frosch, Kevin | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 02/01/2010 | |
| Carter Krieger, Lori | Corporate director | Individual | 07/20/2020 | |
| Bain, William | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/23/2011 | |
| Bell, Billie | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/03/2023 | |
| Frosch, Kevin | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/01/2010 | |
| Hardt, Timothy | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/23/2011 | |
| Johnson, Tony | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/26/2012 | |
| Windrow, Zachary | Corporate officer | Individual | 11/26/2012 | |
| Winkler, Judy | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/01/2004 | |
| Young, Carlton | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/01/2006 | |
| Las Colinas SNF LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 08/01/2017 | |
| Bell, Billie | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/03/2023 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Texas. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.