11020 Dessau Rd, Austin, TX 78754 · Travis County · (512) 873-2244
124 certified beds, about 110 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2009
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 676238 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 23, 2026, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 24 health citations since December 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $28,064 in the last three years; the largest was $28,064, and the latest is dated September 17, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.17 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.66 of those hours.
CMS links it to The Ensign Group, an affiliated group of 344 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to care for residents in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for three (Resident #3, Resident #31, and Resident #106) out of 10 residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to knock on Resident #3's, Resident #31's and Resident # 106's doors prior to entry when going into the residents' rooms. The deficient practice could place residents at risk of feeling like their privacy is being invaded or the facility is not their home.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow menus for 3 (Resident #2, Resident #23, and Resident #88) of 3 residents reviewed for a pureed diet. The facility failed to use a large enough scoop when serving residents on a pureed diet on 4/21/26, 4/22/26, and 4/23/26. This failure placed residents at risk for decreased intake and weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents could call for staff assistance through a communication system which relays the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area from each resident's bedside for 4 of 17 residents (Resident #31, #41, # 42 and # 76) reviewed for the ability to call for staff assistance. The facility failed to provide a working communication system that was easily at reach, which would allow Resident #31, # 41, #42 and # 76 the ability to safely call for staff for assistance. This failure could place residents at risk of not having a means of directly contacting caregivers in an emergency or when they needed support for daily living.
Inspectors wroteBased on Observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for 1 of 15 residents (Resident #79) reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to ensure Resident #79 was provided with incontinent care after staff got her out of bed. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving care services, diminished quality of life, and decreased self-esteem. Findings Included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents received proper treatment and care to maintain mobility and good foot health for 1 (Resident #67) of 8 residents reviewed for foot care. The facility failed to obtain podiatry services for Resident #67. This failure placed residents at risk for toenail loss, pain, and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 2 (Resident #51 and Resident #88) of 10 residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility failed to ensure Resident #51 took her medication while staff were present. Staff left Resident #51's medication on her bedside table for her to take. Resident #51 had not been assessed for self-administration. The facility failed to put Resident #88's inhaler back in the medication cart. The failure placed residents at risk of not taking their medication, or another resident getting the medication and taking the pills or the inhaler.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the facility did not use physical abuse for 1 of 2 Residents. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was free from abuse when CNA A and CNA B were changing the briefs of Resident # 1 on 08/17/2025. This failure could place residents at risk for serious psychosocial harm from abuse, humiliation, intimidation, fear, shame, agitation, and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibited and prevented abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property for one of one resident (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse, neglect, and exploitation. The facility failed to implement their policies and procedures to ensure Resident #1 was free from abuse when the facility failed to have effective interventions and services in place to address the resident's care, which resulted in Resident #1 sustaining Comminuted (bone that is broken in at least two places),(mildly displaced fracture of the base of the right first digital proximal phalanz (most basal bones of each digit.)with extension to the first digit joint time stamped 08.18.25 @ at 13:57 pm, reported signed by Doctor. An IJ was identified on 09/15/2025. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown sources were reported immediately, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse to the Administrator of the facility and to other officials, including the State Survey Agency, in accordance with State law through established procedures for 1 of 6 residents ( Resident # 1 reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility failed to report to HHSC when Resident #1 was found to have a significant bruise and swelling to right thumb of unknown origin on 08/17/25 at 3:03PM. This failure to report could place the residents at risk for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate resident identification before transport for outside medical appointments for 1 (Resident #10) of 3 sampled residents. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #10 made it to his scheduled surgical appointment, and the facility sent the wrong resident in his place. This finding could place residents at risk for missing medical treatments. Record review Resident #10's medical diagnosis shows that Resident #10is diagnosed with hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting the left non-dominant side (paralysis), heart failure, and major depressive disorder, recurrent moderate (depression). Resident #10 MDS showed that he had a BIMS of 10, which indicates moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #10. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program so that facility was free of pests and rodents for 1 of 7 bedrooms reviewed for physical environment. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #2's bedroom was free from ants. This finding could place residents at risk for bug bites, unsanitary environment and emotional distress. RR of Resident #2's face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #2 had diagnoses of Parkinson's Disease, Chronic Kidney Disease, and Muscle Weakness. RR of Resident #2's care plan dated 06/08/2023 revealed Resident #2 was at risk for impaired communication function/dementia r/t short term memory loss. RR of Resident #2's hospital record dated 08/14/2025 which triggered a visit for infected insect bite or sting. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure each resident had the right to access personal and medical records pertaining to himself or herself within 24 hours and allow the resident to obtain a copy of the records or any portions thereof upon request for 1 (Resident #1) of 6 residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to provide a copy of Resident #1's medical records to Resident #1's RP after requesting the records on 02/21/25. This failure could place residents at risk of not having access to records when requested.
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 (Resident #20, Resident #49, and Resident #51) of 15 resident reviewed for dignity. The facility failed to ensure Resident #49, and Resident #51 received their meal with other residents at their table. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #20 was assisted with feeding when his meal tray was delivered to his room. This failure could place residents at risk of diminished dignity and affect their quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for 4 of 20 residents (Resident #64, Resident #42, Resident #31, and Resident #104) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living's. The facility failed to ensure Resident #64, Resident #42, Resident #31, Resident #and Resident #104's fingernails were trimmed 02/18/2025 through 02/20/2025. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #28 was free from foul odors by providing incontinent care and ADL assistance. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving services or care, diminished quality of life, and decreased self-esteem.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident bedside and toilet and bathing facilities were adequately equipped to allow all residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system that would relay the call directly to a staff member or a centralized staff work area for 1of 14 residents (Resident #102 and Resident # 34) reviewed for resident call system . The facility failed to provide a working communication system, that was easily at reach, that would allow Resident #102 the ability to safely call for staff for assistance. This failure could place residents at risk of not having a means of directly contacting caregivers in an emergency or when they needed support for daily living.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, 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 infection for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2,) reviewed for infection control. CNAs B, C, and D failed to properly perform incontinent care on Residents #1 and 2. CNA D failed to perform hand hygiene while performing incontinent care on Resident #2. The facility failed to wear PPE when providing high contact resident care (dressing, bathing, transfers, wound care, device) to Resident #2. The facility failed to have signage on resident door that reflected PPE was required for high contact care for Resident #2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment was as free from accident hazards as possible for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was transferred safely when CNA A transferred her by mechanical lift by herself on 01/10/2025. This failure placed residents at risk of injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately notify the resident's physician when there was a significant change in the resident's physical status for one (Resident #1) of four residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's NP was notified that she began consistently refusing and/or spitting out her medications in the middle of December 2024. This failure placed residents at risk of medical diagnoses not getting treated and a decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection and prevention control program that included, at a minimum, a system for preventing and controlling infections for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for infection control, as indicated by: The facility failed to ensure CNA A and CNA B performed infection control practices during peri care. These failures could place the residents at risk of transmission of diseases and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of their needs and preferences for 3 of 11 residents (Residents #2, 3, and 4) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure call buttons were in reach for Residents #2, 3, and 4 on 09/10/24. This failure placed residents at risk of not having their needs met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment was as free from accident hazards as possible for 1 of 11 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was transferred safely when CNA A transferred her by mechanical lift by herself on 09/07/24 and 09/08/24. This failure placed residents at risk of injury.
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 diseases and infections for eight (Residents #1 - #8) out of 14 residents reviewed for infection control, in that: The facility failed to: - Ensure Residents that tested positive for COVID-19 (Residents #1 - #4) were isolated from their confirmed negative roommates (Residents #5 -#8). - Ensure staff were donning CDC-recommended PPE before entering rooms of COVID-19 positive residents (Residents #1 - #4). These failures placed residents at risk of transmission and/or spread of infection which could lead to hospitalization.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1(Resident #6) of 1 Residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #6's oxygen tubing was replaced and dated every seven (7) days. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #6's humidifier bottle was replaced and dated every seven (7) days. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #6's humidifier bottle was properly secured to the oxygen machine. These failures could place residents at risk for respiratory compromise and infection.
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 to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 6 (#90 and #256) Residents reviewed for infection control practices. CNA D failed to use proper hand hygiene techniques when proving perineal incontinence care for Resident #90 and #256. These failures had the potential to affect all residents in the facility by placing them at risk of contracting, spreading, and/or exposing them to bacterial or viral infections that could lead to the spread of communicable diseases.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| September 17, 2025 | Fine | $28,064 |
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) | 3.17 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.66 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.68 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.10 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.41 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | not reported | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS expects 4.15 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 3.37 on weekdays and 2.68 on weekends, 20% 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 3.13 in April to June 2025 to 3.17 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 | 3.17 | 0.66 | 3.37 | 2.68 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 110 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.12 | 0.61 | 3.29 | 2.68 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 115 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.13 | 0.62 | 3.29 | 2.71 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 115 |
| 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 | 30.0 | 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 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.7 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 29.1 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 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 | 29.4 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 9.4 | 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 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Legend Oaks Healthcare and Rehabilitation - North's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (47.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
47.6% 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. 98 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. 129 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. 76 eligible stays.
67.3% 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. 52 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. 83 residents counted.
0.9% 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. 83 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Texas98.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 26 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: GUADALUPE COUNTY HOSPITAL BOARD. CMS links this home to The Ensign Group, a group of 344 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guadalupe County Hospital Board | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 04/01/2017 |
| Quintero, Joselyn | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 06/27/2018 | |
| Rathi, Anil | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 04/10/2025 | |
| Burnam, Soon | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2017 | |
| Gann, Kody | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/01/2021 | |
| Keetch, Chad | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2011 | |
| Dessau Healthcare Inc | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2017 | |
| Quintero, Joselyn | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/27/2018 | |
| Rathi, Anil | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/10/2025 | |
| Dessau Healthcare Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/07/2025 | |
| Ensign Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 05/01/2016 | |
| National Health Investors, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2017 | |
| Texas Nhi Investors, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2017 | |
| Quintero, Joselyn | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/27/2018 | |
| Rathi, Anil | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/10/2025 |
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.