15366 Oak St., Lytle, TX 78052 · Atascosa County · (830) 772-3557
70 certified beds, about 45 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1994
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675295 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on July 17, 2025, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 43 health citations since March 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $55,904 in the last three years; the largest was $55,904, and the latest is dated May 27, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 2.84 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.35 of those hours.
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 43 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews the facility failed electronically submit to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) complete and accurate direct care staffing information, including information for agency and contract staff, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data in a uniform format according to specifications established by CMS, for 1 of 1 facility's reviewed for Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) reporting to CMS. The facility's Business Office Manager and the Administrator failed to report the January, February, and March 2025 PBJ data to the CMS. This failure could place residents at risk for neglect.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the storage of all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys, for 1 of 43 residents (Resident #10) reviewed for medication storage. The DON failed to secure Resident #10's, 30 pills of trazadone 50mg (a drug used to treat depression), when the pills were left unattended and unsecured on the nurse's station desk for 2 hours. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving the therapeutic effects of the drugs prescribed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and or distributed in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, for 1 of 1 facility's reviewed for professional standards for food service safety, in that: 1. The snack cart had expired thickened tea available for serving to residents and sandwiches without labels. 2. One gallon of unidentified juice dated 06/30/2025 was located in walk-in cooler, unknown if that was the open date, prepared date or use by date. 3. Pantry items were improperly stored on the floor without the use of a pallet to include 1 case of canned [NAME] Pasado beans, 1 case of canned pie filling, 1 case of oatmeal cream pies, 1 case of dill pickle relish, 1 case of quaker oats, 1 case of yellow frying corn. This failure could place residents at risk for food borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on Observations and interviews the facility failed to maintain all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment in safe operating condition, for 1 of 1 laundry facilities reviewed for safe operating clothing washers and dryers. The facility was licensed for 70 residents and had 2 commercial washers for which only 1 was operational and had 2 commercial dryers for which only 1 was operational. These failures could place residents at risk for not having adequate hygiene and laundry services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents and/or their representatives the right to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care for 3 of 3 residents [Resident #3, Resident #4, Resident 8] reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to invite and include the input of Resident #3, Resident #6, Resident #8 and/or their representatives in the care plan conference meetings. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the interventions, treatments, and care necessary for the resident to reach their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being by not involving the resident and/or the residents' representative in the care plan conference meetings.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to assess each resident for using the quarterly review instrument specified by the State and approved by CMS in a timely manner for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for timely assessments, in that:1. Resident #3's last Quarterly MDS was completed 3/14/25 and the Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] was opened but not completed and transmitted.2. Resident #16's last Quarterly MDS was completed 9/5/24, and no additional MDS had been initiated. This failure could lead to residents not receiving necessary, complete, or correct care due to lack of current information.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from any significant medication errors, for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #37) reviewed for significant medication administration errors. LVN A intended to administer Resident #37's Lacosamide, a medication used to control seizures, by crushing the medication contrary to the physician's orders and the pharmacist's recommendations. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving the intended therapeutic effects of their prescribed medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a record of resident's activity assessments for 2 of 2 [Resident #3, Resident #16] residents reviewed for accuracy of records. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3 and Resident #16 had quarterly evaluations and assessments for activities. This failure could place residents at risk for decline in quality of life and poor psychosocial well-being due to not identifying resident's activity preferences and needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident has the right to voice grievances to the facility or other agency or entity that hears grievances without discrimination or reprisal and without fear of discrimination or reprisal. Such grievances include those with respect to care and treatment which has been furnished as well as that which has not been furnished, the behavior of staff and of other residents, and other concerns regarding their LTC facility stay. The resident has the right to, and the facility must make prompt efforts to resolve grievances for 46 of 46 residents. 1. The facility failed to have a grievance process in place to ensure the prompt resolution of all grievances regarding the residents' rights. 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #45) reviewed for notification of changes in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #45's nephrostomy tube was removed as soon as medically possible. Resident #45 was first documented to have a kidney stone requiring a nephrostomy tube (an opening between the kidney and the skin. A nephrostomy tube is a thin plastic tube that is passed from the back, through the skin and then through the kidney, to the point where the urine collects) and needed to see a urologist on 09/2023. Resident #45 was scheduled for surgery on 04/09/24 but the surgery was canceled due to an insurance issue the facility did not properly follow up on the insurance requirements. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to immediately consult with the resident's physician, when there was a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status (that was, a deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications) and a need to alter treatment significantly for 1 of 6 Residents (Resident #45) who was reviewed for a decline in status, in that: The facility failed to ensure the Physician/Medical Director for Resident #45 was notified when the resident was sent to the hospital ER on at least 15 occasions for complications of his nephrostomy tube. Resident #45 was first documented to have a kidney stone requiring a nephrostomy tube (an opening between the kidney and the skin. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse including injuries of unknown source were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, and to report the results of all investigations to the State Survey Agency, within 5 working days of the incident for 3 of 14 Residents (Resident #7, Resident #46 and Resident #200) whose records were reviewed for reportable allegations of abuse. *The facility failed to report the results of the investigation for 2 self-reported incidents involving Resident #7 and #46 by not completing Form 3613 A and sending it to the State Agency within 5 days. *Resident #200 had an unwitnessed fall on 5/4/24 and sustained a golf sized hematoma to her head. The ADM did not report it as an injury of unknown origin. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review 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 person-centered care plan to reflect the current condition for 2 of 16 residents (Resident #4 and Resident #7) reviewed for care plan revisions. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4's comprehensive care plan was updated to reflect she had a left hand contracture. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #7's comprehensive care plan was updated to reflect she was on Hospice services, was receiving oxygen and was receiving wound care. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not receiving appropriate interventions to meet their current needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the physician reviewed the resident's total program of care, including medication and treatments, at each visit and wrote, signed and dated progress notes at each visit for 7 of 14 Residents (Resident #4, Resident #7, Resident #15, Resident #17, Resident #40, Resident #45 and Resident 200) reviewed for physician visits. The facility failed to ensure resident orders were signed by a physician, physician progress notes were available for Residents, were signed and dated by the physician(s) for each visit via the physical charts, and residents were seen by a physician at least once every 30 days for the first 90 days after admission, then at least once every 60 days thereafter. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident that are-accurately documented for 3 of 12 residents (Resident #15, Resident #45, and Resident #200) reviewed for accurate medical records in that: 1. The facility failed to document Resident #15's refusal to attend medical appointments. 2. The facility failed to ensure nursing staff completed documentation for Resident #45's nephrostomy care in March and April of 2024. The facility failed to completed medication consent forms for Resident #45. 3. The facility failed to ensure nursing staff wrote a progress note reflecting when and what hospital Resident #200 was sent to after she fell on 5/4/24. These deficient practices could affect residents who have medical records and could result in misinformation about professional care provided.
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 disease and infection for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #45) reviewed for infection control, in that: The facility failed to ensure LVN A used sanitized scissors, followed hand hygiene, and followed procedure for sterile technique while providing nephrostomy care to Resident #45. These deficient practices could place residents at-risk for infection due to improper care practices.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents for 1 of 3 resident shower rooms (B Hallway) observed for resident environment. The facility failed to ensure the B hallway bathroom was clean. There was a black substance on the bathroom tile, a foul smell, and broken tiles on the floor. This failure could place residents at risk for an unsafe and unsanitary environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to conduct an initial comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capacity including the resident's needs, strengths, goals, life history and preferences for 1 of 5 Residents (Resident 200) reviewed for assessments. The MDS Coordinator failed to complete Resident #200's comprehensive assessment within 14 days after admission, 4/23/24 This deficient practice could affect newly admitted residents and result in residents not receiving the care and services as needed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflect the resident's status for 1 of 5 Resident's (Resident #4) whose records were reviewed for assessments. The MDS Coordinator failed to code that Resident #4 had a limited range of motion on her upper extremity related to left hand contracture for two, 2 assessment periods, 6/2/23 and 2/15/24 This deficient practice could affect residents and contribute to the resident's not receiving the necessary care and services as needed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to refer all residents with possible serious mental disorder or a related condition for level II resident review upon a significant change in status assessment for 1 of 6 Residents (Resident #45) whose records were reviewed for mental disorders. The facility failed to refer Resident #45 for a PASARR evaluation based on mental disorder diagnoses including bipolar disorder and anxiety. The facility failed to refer Resident #45 for a PASARR evaluation based on mental disorder diagnoses including manic depression (bipolar disease), anxiety and depression. This deficient practice could affect residents with a mental illness and contribute to a delay in services needed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for 1 of 5 Residents (Resident #7) reviewed for skin integrity. LVN H failed to use adequate hand hygiene during wound care; failed to clarify the order for wound care and failed to follow the order provided by Hospice services for Resident #7's wound on her left great toe. These deficient practices could affect residents who required pressure ulcer treatment and contribute to wounds becoming infected preventing the wounds from healing.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 Resident (Resident #7) whose record was reviewed for oxygen therapy. Nursing staff failed to clean Resident #7's filter on the oxygen concentrator; it had a layer of lint covering the entire outside of the filter. This deficient practice could affect residents receiving oxygen therapy and could contribute to an upper respiratory infection and a resident's decline in physical health.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a physician was notified and provided orders for a resident's immediate care and needs for 2 of 14 residents (Resident #49 and Resident #200) reviewed for physician orders. The facility failed to ensure the Physician personally signed the initial admission orders for Resident #49 and Resident #200. This failure could affect the residents in the facility by placing them at risk for not receiving physician care for their immediate needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to have sufficient nursing staff with the appropriate competencies and skill sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable, physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 2 of 2 (LVN A and LVN H) nurses reviewed for competent nursing care. 1. The facility failed to ensure LVN A followed facility policy while providing nephrostomy care to Resident #45 when she used contaminated equipment, did not use sterile gloves, and contaminated her hands. 2. The facility failed to ensure LVN H was aware of how to calibrate a glucometer and ensured the glucometer she used to check residents blood glucose daily was calibrated. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident's drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs without adequate indications for its use for 1 of 3 Residents (Resident #17) whose record were reviewed for drug regimen. Nursing staff did not obtain a consent from Resident #17's family representative for the use of Depakote (anticonvulsant) used for mood disorder and did not indicate the medication classification on the consent form. These deficient practices could affect residents who received medications for mood disorder and could contribute to the use of unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments under proper temperature controls and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for 1 of 2 medication carts and 1 of 2 supply storage rooms (C hall and nursing supply room) reviewed for storage of drugs. 1 The facility failed to ensure the nurse supply room patient nourishment refrigerator did not contain staff food, expired products, unlabeled food products, and unsealed food products. 2. The facility failed to ensure the crash cart did not contain expired products. 3. The facility failed to ensure C hall medication cart did not contain loose pills and expired medications in it This deficient practice could place residents at risk of medication misuse and diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide a therapeutic diet, in the appropriate form as prescribed by a physician for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #15) observed for therapeutic diets. The facility failed to provide Resident #15 a mechanical soft diet, as ordered by the physician. This failure could affect residents with physician orders for therapeutic diets and could result in consumption of inappropriate textured food items which could cause choking or aspiration and a decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to establish and implement written policies and procedures for feedback, data collections systems, and monitoring, including adverse event monitoring. The facility did not have a QAPI plan, policies or procedures in place for program systematic analysis and systemic action. This deficient practice could affect all residents' overall quality of life and quality of care they received as a result of not having systems in place to improve direct care nursing staff provided.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to post in a place readily accessible to residents, and family members and legal representatives of residents, the results of the most recent survey of the facility for 4 of 7 survey days. Facility staff failed to ensure the survey binder was available 4 of 7 survey days in the lobby per the sign posted at the facility entrance. This deficient practice could affect any resident and could result in the violation of residents' rights to read the survey results.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to conduct and document a comprehensive facility-wide assessment for the past 3 years to determine what resources were necessary to care for its residents competently during day-to-day operations and review and update the assessment at least annually. The Facility Assessment had not been completed or updated since 2021. This failure could place residents at risk of their needs going unmet and result in a lack of services provided by the facility to competently care for all residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to provide 4 of 35 double occupancy resident rooms (Rooms 27, 28, 34 and 35) with at least 80 square feet per resident in that: Rooms 27, 28,34 and 35 did not have the required minimum of 80 square feet per resident. This failure could affect residents placed in these multiple occupancy rooms by reducing their living space.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to incorporate the recommendations from the PASRR level II determination and the PASRR evaluation report into a resident's assessment, care planning and transitions of care for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for PASRR. The facility failed to submit NFSS forms timely for Resident #1. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving specialized services in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on 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 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for comprehensive care plans in that: Resident #1's comprehensive care plan did not address refusal for select PASRR services. This deficient practice could place residents in the facility at risk of not being provided with the necessary care or services and having personalized plans developed and accessible to address their specific needs.
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 2 of 4 residents (Resident #1 and #2) reviewed for accuracy of medical records in that: Resident #1 and Resident #2 comprehensive care plan was not accessible to all staff in the medical records system. This deficient practice could affect residents whose records were maintained by the facility and place them at risk for errors in care and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain medical records, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, which were complete and accurate for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accuracy of records. The facility did not document in Resident #1's medical record that resident suffered a second fall in early September 2023. This failure could place residents at risk of not having accurate medical records and could create confusion in services provided or needed to be provided.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan which includes the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality care for 3 of 5 residents (Resident #27, Resident #31, and Resident #52) reviewed for baseline care plans. The facility failed to develop a baseline care plan for Resident #27, Resident #31, and Resident #52. This failure could affect newly admitted residents and place them at risk of not receiving continuity of care and communication among nursing home staff to ensure their immediate care needs are met.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs for 7 of 15 residents (Residents #1, #3, #8, #10, #13, #27, #31, and #56) reviewed for care plans in that: 1. Resident #1's diagnosis of schizophrenia was not addressed in the care plan. 2. Resident #3 received pain medications with pain not addressed in the care plan. 3. Resident #8's care plan goals and interventions were contradictory and not individualized. 4. Resident #10's diagnosis for schizophrenia was not addressed in the care plan. 5. Resident #13's care plan did not address the use of bilateral prosthesis. 6. Resident #27's received skeletal muscle relaxant with muscle spasms/pain not addressed in care plan. 7. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of resident needs for 1 of 15 residents reviewed for call light: Resident # 1's call light was not placed within reach of her . This failure could place residents who used call lights for assistance in maintaining and/or achieving independent functioning, dignity, and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the resident status for 1 (Resident #56) of 15 residents reviewed for assessments in that: Resident #56's thick nectar liquids were not reflected on the MDS. This failure could affect residents at the facility who had been assessed and could contribute to inadequate care.
Inspectors wroteBased on in Interview and record review, the facility failed to coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program (PASARR) to the maximum extent practicable to avoid duplicate testing and effort for 2 of 15 resident's ( Resident #1 and Resident #10), reviewed for PASARR in that : 1. Resident #1 had a serious mental disorder that was not referred for level II review. 2. Resident #10 had a serious mental disorder and was not referred for level II review. This failure could place residents with serious mental disorders by not receiving support services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for 1 of 15 residents (Resident #51) who were reviewed for indwelling urinary catheter care, in that: a. Resident #51's indwelling urinary catheter (suprapubic urinary catheter) tubing touched the floor. b. Resident #51's catheter anchor was not placed on the leg These failures could affect residents with indwelling urinary catheters and place them at risk of urinary tract infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to provide 3 of 35 double occupancy resident rooms (rooms [ROOM NUMBER]) with at least 80 square feet per resident in that: Rooms 27, 28 and 34 did not have the required minimum of 80 square feet per resident. This failure could affect residents placed in these multiple occupancy rooms by reducing their living space.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to implement establish policies, in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, regarding smoking, and smoking safety for 1 (Resident's #31) of 6 residents reviewed did not have their smoking assessment. The facility failed to ensure Resident #31 was assessed for safe smoking per the facility policy. This failure could affect smoking residents and could result in harm if policies were not followed.
14 fire safety citations on file: 3 on July 17, 2025, 4 on May 27, 2024, 7 on March 22, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| May 27, 2024 | Fine | $55,904 |
| May 27, 2024 | Payment Denial | 13 days from June 27, 2024 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Texas | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 2.84 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.35 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.61 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.67 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.82 | ||
| 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 3.40 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 2.93 on weekdays and 2.61 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 2.15 in April to June 2025 to 2.84 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 2.84 | 0.35 | 2.93 | 2.61 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 45 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 2.69 | 0.31 | 2.81 | 2.39 | 0.0% | 2 of 92 | 46 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 2.15 | 0.33 | 2.10 | 2.26 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 45 |
| 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 | 31.0 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 29.2 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.5 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.1 | 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 Lytle Nursing Home's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 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. 2 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 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. 11 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 7.1% · Texas: 4 better, 11 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 6 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 17 residents counted.
4.8% 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. 21 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. 21 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. 5 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: LABRANJOR HEALTH CARE LLC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labranjor Health Care LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 04/16/2008 |
| McCaskill, Donald | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 04/18/2008 |
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.