6801 E Riverside Dr, Austin, TX 78741 · Travis County · (512) 247-9000
122 certified beds, about 112 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2010
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 676246 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 15, 2026, inspectors cited 2 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 28 health citations since September 2023, 5 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $10,820 in the last three years; the largest was $10,820, and the latest is dated March 26, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.38 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.42 of those hours.
52.5% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Hamilton County Hospital District, an affiliated group of 10 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 28 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 3 residents in the 400-hall. 3 of 3 residents reviewed for infection control1. The facility failed to ensure hand hygiene was completed when passing residents' breakfast trays to residents in the 400 hall. These failures could place residents at risk of disease and infection transmission.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all residents were free from physical abuse for 1 of 7 (Resident #1) residents reviewed for resident-resident altercations. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 did not hit Resident #1 on 3/06/2026. This failure could place residents at risk for psychological and physical harm. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The noncompliance began on 3/06/2026 and ended on 3/09/2026. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident received services with reasonable accommodation of the resident's needs and preferences for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #66) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #66's call light was within reach on 01/13/2026. This failure could place residents at risk for unmet needs, delayed care, and injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were given the appropriate treatment and services to carry out the activities of daily living (ADLs) for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #69) reviewed for ADL abilities, in that: Resident #69's nails were long, jagged, and dirty and had built-up dirt and grime underneath all fingernails on 01/13/26. This deficient practice could place residents who required assistance for trimming, cleaning, and filing their nails which could put residents at risk for infections and skin concerns.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1), reviewed for pharmaceutical services. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #1 was administered her 2 tablets of Acetaminophen 325 MG crushed due to her diagnosis of Dysphagia and difficulty swallowing. The medication administered by RN B (2 tablets of acetaminophen non-crushed) caused the resident to cough uncontrollably. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving medications as ordered, aspiration, psychosocial harm/fear, and decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to accommodate the needs and preferences for one(Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for accommodation of needs, in that: The facility failed to provide a working communication system, that was easily at reach, that would allow Resident #1 the ability to safely call to 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 need support for daily living.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents environment remained as free of accident hazards as is possible and ensure each resident received adequate supervision for one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed for accidents and hazards. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 did not elope from the facility without staff's knowledge on 03/25/25 by following a contract worker out the front door. Resident #1 self-propelled to the driveway where she rolled down into and across the street to the median where she bumped into the curb and fell out of her wheelchair. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) existed on 03/25/25. The IJ was determined to be at past noncompliance as the facility had implemented actions that corrected the deficient practice prior to the beginning of the investigation. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, and distribute food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen and food sanitation. 1. The facility failed to label, and date food stored in the walk-in refrigerator. 2. The facility failed to label, and date food stored in the walk-in freezer. 3. The facility failed to ensure food preparation areas and appliances, including equipment such as the fryer, microwave, toaster, blender, and ice machine were maintained clean and sanitary. 4. The facility failed to ensure handwashing supplies were stocked at the kitchen handwashing station (no paper towels). These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 1 laundry facility reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure LS A was following handwashing and sanitation when working with soiled clothing and moving to clean clothing; and failing to keep items stocked and readily available for use in hand hygiene (paper towels). 2. The facility failed to ensure laundry staff was maintaining and cleaning the lint traps for both commercial sized tumble dryers in the clean laundry room side. This failure could place residents at risk for development of communicable diseases and infections.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment and to exercise reasonable care for the protection of the resident's property from loss or theft for 2 of 6 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) reviewed for personal belongings. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 and Resident #2's clothes and belongings were reasonably protected from loss or theft. These failures placed residents at risk of diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment and to exercise reasonable care for the protection of the resident's property from loss or theft for 1 of 24 residents (Resident #76) reviewed for personal belongings and 1 of 1 smoking area reviewed for cleanliness. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #76's clothes and belongings were reasonably protected from loss or theft. 2. The facility failed to ensure staff and residents disposed of cigarette butts in the designated receptacle in the facility smoking area and front porch/sidewalk on 10/29/24. These failures placed residents at risk of diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, 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 of 8 residents (Residents #100, 70, and 104) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure Residents #100, 70, and 104 had activities care plans that were person-centered and specific. This failure placed residents at risk of boredom and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide, based on the comprehensive assessment and care plan and the preferences of each resident, an ongoing program to support residents in their choice of activities, both facility-sponsored group and individual activities and independent activities, designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident, encouraging both independence and interaction in the community for 3 of 24 residents (Residents #27, 100, and 104) reviewed for activities. The facility failed to ensure Residents #27, 100, and 104 received activities according to their preferences on their comprehensive assessments. This failure placed residents at risk of boredom and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide food that accommodated resident allergies, intolerances, or preferences for 1 of 9 residents (Resident #24) reviewed for meal preferences. The facility failed to cut Resident #24's meat according to her meal ticket during lunch 10/28/24, dinner 10/29/24, and lunch 10/30/24 and failed to ensure she was not served squash, which her meal ticket reflected she disliked. This failure placed residents at risk of weight loss and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview 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 5 of 12 residents (Resident #7, Resident #16, Resident #47, Resident #104, and Resident #408) reviewed for infection control, as indicated by: The facility failed to ensure : 1. CNA G and CNA F performed clean practices during peri care for Resident # 104 and Resident 408 2. CNA J sanitized her hands between residents while passing meal trays to Residents in Hall #100. 3. MA I sanitized her hands before preparing medications, medical equipment after contact with Resident #7 , Resident #16 and Resident #47. 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 maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility is free of pests for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for physical environment. The facility failed to provide an effective pest control program for flies and cockroaches in the facility. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of remaining in an environment that was not free of pests.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' right to be treated with respect and dignity during personal care for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #408 and Resident # 21) reviewed for respect and dignity in that: The facility failed to ensure LVN E provided privacy when providing Resident #21 with wound care. The facility failed to ensure CNA F provided privacy when providing Resident #408 with incontinent care. This failure could place residents at risk of emotional distress and low self esteem
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to assist residents in obtaining routine dental services to meet the needs of 1 of 7 (Resident #15) reviewed for dental services. The facility failed to assist Resident #15 with obtaining dental services in a timely manner when her bottom dentures broke sometime after May 2024. This deficient practice could affect residents by placing them at risk of not receiving necessary care and services to maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being which could result in decreased quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure residents have the right to receive visitors of his or her choosing at the time of his or her choosing for 1 (Resident #1) of 10 Residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility did not allow Resident #1 to visit with a family member. This failure could place residents at risk of isolation, decreased emotional wellbeing, and diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation) of needs and preference for 4 of 5 (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3 and Resident #4) who were reviewed for accommodation of needs. The facility failed to ensure on 09/11/2024 the call light was in place for Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3. The facility failed to ensure there was an order to check functioning of Resident #3 and Resident #4's air mattresses. The facility failed to ensure the air mattress order dated 09/02/2024 was plugged in and functioning for Resident #1 on 09/11/2024. These failures could place residents at risk of being unable to obtain assistance when needed and help in the event of an emergency and at risk for malfunction of their air mattresses.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that included measurable objectives and timetables to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop a care plan and interventions that addressed Resident #1's high fall risk. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their individualized needs met, a delay in services, injuries, and not receiving adequate care .
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all residents had a private place for telephone communications without being overheard for three (CR #1, CR #2, and CR #3) Confidential Residents out of five residents reviewed for private communications, in that: The facility failed to ensure there was an area or phone available for CR #1, CR #2, and CR #3 to have private telephone communications. This failure could place residents at risk to lose their ability to communicate privately on the telephone and could result in a decline in their psychosocial well-being and quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for one of one kitchen reviewed for sanitation. 1. The facility failed to ensure all items were labeled, dated and discarded prior to their use-by date. 2. The facility failed to ensure all items were covered and stored properly. These failures placed residents at risk of foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to act promptly to the grievances and recommendations of residents participating in monthly organized resident meeting for seven of ten residents (Resident #26, #28, #58, #18, #70, #76, #12) grievances related to snack provisions, return of clothing from laundry services, meal temperature/timeliness, and call light response time for seven of ten residents reviewed for grievances expressed. These failures could put residents at risk for decreased sense of self-worth, decline in quality of life, and loss of dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation, and record review , the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable or required assistance to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene, for 7 of 21 residents (Resident #60, Resident #25, Resident #26, Resident #30, Resident #70, Resident #71, and Resident #237) reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to provide showers three times a week per shower schedule for Resident #25, Resident #26, Resident #30, Resident #70, Resident #71, and Resident #237. This failure could place residents who required assistance with showering and maintaining good personal hygiene at risk for not receiving care and services to meet their needs and ADL decline. Findings for Resident #25 included: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs for two (Resident #48 and Resident #72) of eight residents reviewed for call light placement. The facility failed to ensure Resident #48 and Resident #72 had call lights within their reach. This failure placed residents at risk of not having their needs accommodated.
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 one (Resident #5) of eight residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #5 had orders in place to check for placement and function of his pacemaker device. This failure placed residents at risk of having an unmonitored pacemaker device.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents had the right to neglect for one (Resident #1) out of three residents reviewed for neglect, in that: The facility failed to pick up Resident #1 from his chemo treatment until three plus hours after his treatment had ended. Resident #1 had to wait outside while the facility was not answering his phone calls. He experienced increased frustration, humiliation, exhaustion, and harm to his psychosocial well-being. He stated he still felt frustrated and neglected. This failure placed residents at risk of experiencing humiliation, dehydration, and a decrease of self-worth.
13 fire safety citations on file: 8 on January 15, 2026, 5 on October 30, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 26, 2025 | Fine | $10,820 |
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) | 3.38 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.42 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.80 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.14 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.81 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 52.5% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 46.7% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.79 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 3.61 on weekdays and 2.80 on weekends, 22% 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 3.34 in April to June 2025 to 3.38 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 | 3.38 | 0.42 | 3.61 | 2.80 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 112 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.30 | 0.36 | 3.50 | 2.78 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 110 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.35 | 0.39 | 3.58 | 2.77 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 113 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.34 | 0.36 | 3.59 | 2.71 | 0.2% | 0 of 91 | 114 |
| 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 | 33.1 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.2 | 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 | 27.5 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.8 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.8 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 32.8 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.9 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.0 | 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 Riverside Nursing and Rehabilitation Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (42.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
42.3% 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. 25 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. 44 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. 20 eligible stays.
60.7% 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. 28 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. 49 residents counted.
3.6% 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. 49 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. 9 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: HAMILTON COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Hamilton County Hospital District, a group of 10 nursing homes averaging 2.3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breeden, Bobby | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 10/01/2022 | |
| Krol, Michael | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 01/02/2025 | |
| Burnam, Soon | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/18/2022 | |
| Hooper, Grady | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/01/2015 | |
| Keetch, Chad | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2011 | |
| Songbird Healthcare, Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 10/01/2022 | |
| Breeden, Bobby | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2022 | |
| Krol, Michael | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/02/2025 | |
| Ensign Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 01/18/2022 | |
| Songbird Healthcare, Inc. | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/27/2025 | |
| Breeden, Bobby | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2022 | |
| Krol, Michael | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 01/02/2025 |
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.