4302 East Southcross Blvd, San Antonio, TX 78222 · Bexar County · (210) 333-1223
116 certified beds, about 79 residents a day · Government - Hospital district · Medicare and Medicaid since 2001
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 675883 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 3, 2026, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 43 health citations since October 2023, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $10,631 in the last three years; the largest was $10,631, and the latest is dated April 3, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.59 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.19 of those hours.
35.4% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Ruby Healthcare, an affiliated group of 7 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 43 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving misappropriation of resident property are reported immediately but not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials in accordance with State law through established procedures, for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for misappropriation. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's allegation of misappropriation related to missing money was reported to the SSA. This failure could lead to misappropriation or lack of oversight of residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident received adequate supervision to prevent elopement for 1 of 14 residents (R #57) reviewed for accident hazards and supervision. The facility failed to monitor R #57 while he was on the secure unit patio. R #57 eloped from the facility between 6:45 p.m. to 7:10 p.m. on 3/29/26 and was found approximately ninety-six feet away from the facility near a busy two-lane road. This failure resulted in the identification of an IJ (Immediate Jeopardy) on 4/2/26 at 5:00 p.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed, in that: 1. The trash can next to the hand-washing sink had a lid that was closed and was not operated via foot petal.2. Freezer #1 contained approximately 1/4 inch of ice at the bottom and on the sides, a section of the lower part of the freezer was loose and hanging approximately 1 inch from the freezer, and water was dripping from the top of the inside of the freezer onto the food items below.3. Freezer #1 contained frozen garlic bread. The garlic bread was stored in a plastic bag which was open and was in a cardboard box which was also open. The surveyor was able to reach in the box and bag without moving either and touch the exposed food item.4. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and visitors for two resident halls (B Hall and E Hall) and the Dining Room, in that: 1. The biohazard storage room located on resident B Hall was unlocked, accessible by residents, staff, or visitors, and contained biohazard material.2. The housekeeping closet on resident E Hall was unlocked, accessible by residents, staff, or visitors, and contained potentially hazardous chemical cleaning materials.3. The maintenance closet on resident E Hall was not fitted with a door that locked, was accessible by residents, staff, or visitors, and contained a hammer, power tools, and insect spray.4. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident was treated with respect and dignity and care in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for 2 out of 8 rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER] and 108), reviewed for quality of life. Rooms 107 and room [ROOM NUMBER] had no toilet paper in the secure unit. This failure could affect residents that use the secure unit's commodes to suffer a decline in quality of life and experience a denial of respect and dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to personal privacy and confidentiality of his or her personal and medical records for one of three residents (Resident #18) reviewed for privacy. The facility failed to ensure LVN F locked the computer, which exposed Resident #18's morning medication list after he walked away and left the computer unattended. This failure could place residents at risk of having medical information exposed to others and cause residents to feel uncomfortable and disrespected.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and homelike environment for residents, staff, and visitors for one resident halls (B Hall), in that: The resident shower room at the front of B Hall contained soiled towels in on the floor. This deficient practice could result in residents living within, staff working within, and the public visiting within an environment that is not safe, clean, and/or homelike.
Inspectors wroteBased on 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, recognizing each resident's individuality for 1 of 1 Resident (Resident #1) whose records were reviewed for dignity and respect. The facility failed to return Resident #1's identification card, social security card and debit card upon request. This deficient practice could contribute to residents believing staff do not care about their wishes.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to make prompt efforts to resolve grievances the resident may have for 1 of 1 Resident (Resident #1) reviewed for grievances. LVN B failed to follow the grievance process when Resident #1 reported a concern against staff. This deficient practice could result in the resident's concerns not being resolved and to the continuation of poor resident care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents received proper treatment and care to maintain good foot health, the facility must: (i) Provide foot care and treatment, in accordance with professional standards of practice, including to prevent complications from the resident's medical condition(s) for 1 of 2 Residents (Resident #1) whose records were reviewed for foot care. The facility failed to ensure they referred Resident #1 for podiatry care. Resident #1's toenails were long and her right great toenail had discoloration. This deficient practice could affect any resident and contribute to a decline in the resident's health status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to follow the menu for 1 of 2 days of observation (1/6/26) for the lunch meal service. Dietary Staff failed to follow the lunch menu on 1/6/26 which included fried chicken, spinach, mashed potatoes, sugar cookies and buttered dinner roll. This deficient practice could contribute to resident dissatisfaction.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide therapeutic diets prescribed by the attending physician to 1 of 5 Residents (Resident #2) whose records were reviewed for therapeutic menus. Dietary staff failed to serve Resident #2 a renal diet according prescribed by her primary care physician. This deficient practice could result in a decline in the resident's health status.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to employ staff with the appropriate competencies and skill sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, taking into consideration resident assessments, individual plans of care, and the number, acuity and diagnoses of the facility's resident population in accordance with the facility assessment required for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for dietary requirements. The DM did not have the appropriate certification, education, or qualifications to serve as the Director of Food and Nutrition Services. This deficient practice could place the residents who consume food prepared from the kitchen at risk of food borne illness and not receiving adequate nutrition.
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. 1. The facility failed to store plastic bowls to allow for air-drying in the dish room. 2. The facility failed to use the correct log to record the dish machine wash cycle temperatures and chlorine sanitizer concentrations, resulting in no record of chlorine sanitizer concentrations recorded. 3. The facility failed to properly store an opened package of cream cheese and pre-packaged hard-boiled eggs in the reach-in cooler. 4. The facility failed to discard hard-boiled eggs past their use-by date. 5. The facility failed to ensure the tabletop can opener blade and base were free of grime and debris. 6. The facility failed to ensure an opened bag of powdered sugar was properly sealed in the dry storage room. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents had a right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 2 of 24 residents (Residents #10 and #14 ) reviewed for a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, in that: 1. The bed-side dresser of Resident #10 was broken with drawers that would not stay closed. 2. Resident #14's bathroom did not have any toilet paper, and her waste basket was filled with used paper towels that she stated she had been using because she had no toilet paper. This failure could result in psychosocial harm due to diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public on 2 of 6 resident hallways (Hallway A and Hallway F) reviewed for environmental concerns. 1. The facility failed to ensure resident rooms #104 and #107, located on hallway A, had back lids covers for the toilet bowl and room [ROOM NUMBER], also located on hallway A, did not have a 2 foot strip of floor baseboard molding attached to the wall. 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' right to formulate an advance directive for 1 of 22 residents (Resident #175) reviewed for advanced directives, in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #175's signature on his Out-of-Hospital Do Not Resuscitate (OOH DNR) was properly witnessed as Resident #175's signature was dated [DATE], and the two witness's signatures were dated [DATE]. This failure could place residents at risk of having their end of life wishes dishonored, and of having Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed against their wishes.
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 and described the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 (Resident #42) of 8 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to include oxygen treatment in Resident #42's comprehensive care plan initiated 02/10/2022. This deficient practice could affect residents who received oxygen and could result in residents receiving incorrect or inadequate oxygen support and could result in a decline in health. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who need respiratory care were provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 (Resident #42) of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #42's oxygen tubing and nasal cannula were stored properly and that the humidifier bottle or tubing were dated on 02/09/2025 and 02/11/2025 This failure could affect residents on respiratory therapy by placing them at risk for respiratory compromise and infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical eservices (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 1 medication rooms reviewed for pharmacy services. Inspection on 02/11/2025 of the facility medication storage room revealed two expired vials Lorazepam 2mg/ml for Resident #50. This failure could place resident at risk of residents not receiving appropriate therapeutic effects from their medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments and labeled in accordance with correctly accepted professional principles reviewed for 1 of 4 medication carts (E-Hall Nurse's medication cart) reviewed for secure storage. The facility failed on 02/11/2025 to ensure LVN G secured Resident #'13's Fiasp Insulin (a synthetic form of rapid-acting insulin used to treat diabetes mellitus), when it was left unattended on top of the Nurse's medication cart when LVN G entered Resident #13's room and the medication cart remained outside the room out of line of sight from LVN G. This failure could place residents at risk for drug diversion or misuse of medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed a to dispose of garbage and refuse properly. The facility failed to ensure the sliding doors on both sides of the dumpster were completely closed. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for exposure to germs and diseases carried by vermin and rodents.
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 1 of 8 residents (Resident #43) reviewed for infection prevention. The facility failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) were implemented and used when LVN B provided Enteral feeding via a G-tube (a gastrostomy tube - a flexible tube inserted through abdominal wall and into stomach to provide a direct route for delivering food and medications) to Resident #43. This deficient practice could place residents at-risk for spread of infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms were adequately equipped to allow residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system which relayed the call directly to a staff member or to a centralized staff work area for one (Resident #14) of 8 residents reviewed for resident call system. The facility failed to ensure Resident #14's call light system was working properly. This failure could place resident at risk for delay in assistance and decreased quality of life, self-worth, and dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 1 of 89 residents (Resident #38) reviewed for safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, in that: In Resident #38's room, the cord for the window blinds was broken and cold air was entering the room via the window. This deficient practice could result in a loss of quality of life due to living in an uncomfortable home environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as was possible for 1 of 6 resident halls (F Hall) reviewed for accidents and hazards, in that: 1. The shower room on the F Hall was unlocked and accessible to residents and had insulation in the floor from a hole in the ceiling. 2. A pipe emanating from the wall to the right of the kitchen's back door was leaking and resulted in standing water outside the back door of the kitchen. These deficient practices could lead to accidents and/or injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed, in that: 1. The ice machine cover was loose and was soiled on the outside. 2. The air fryer was soiled with crumbs inside the machine and contained oil which was dark in color and soiled with crumbs. 3. A staff member's personal jacket was hanging on the corner of a food storage rack in the pantry. 4. The freezer to the right of the door inside the pantry held two cases of frozen hamburger patties which were open, leaving the patties exposed to contaminants and frost. 5. The freezer to the left of the door inside the pantry help a case of frozen cookies and a case of missed vegetables which were open, leaving the patties exposed to contaminants and frost. 6. [...]
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 1 of 1 facility, reviewed for infection control in that: Staff of multiple disciplines were not utilizing appropriate PPE over multiple days and various shifts while the facility was experiencing a COVID outbreak. These failures placed all residents at risk for the spread of infection through cross-contamination of pathogens and illness which could result in a decline in health and well-being or even death.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of resident needs for 2 of 15 residents reviewed for call light (Residents #13 and #19) reviewed for reasonable accommodations, in that: 1. Resident #13's call light was on the floor of the resident's room and not within the resident's reach on 01/10/2024. 2. Resident #19's call light was on the floor on the resident's room and not within the resident's reach on 01/10/2024. 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' right to formulate an advance directive for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #40) reviewed for advanced directives, in that: Resident #40's Out-of-Hospital Do Not Resuscitate (OOHDNR) was not dated by the resident and the physician at the time it was signed, and did not have the resident's name printed, rendering the document invalid. This failure could place residents at-risk of having their end of life wishes dishonored, and of having CPR performed against their wishes.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level I residents with mental illness were provided with a PASRR Evaluation assessment for 1 of 2 residents (Residents #93) reviewed for PASRR screening, in that: Resident #93's PASRR Level 1 assessment did not accurately capture the resident's diagnosis of mental illness. These failures could place residents with an inaccurate PASRR Level 1 Evaluation at risk for not receiving care and services to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 of 24 residents (Resident #66) reviewed for comprehensive care plans, in that: Resident #66's care plan did not address the resident's psychological care and wound care being provided by the facility with goals or interventions. This deficient practice could result in a loss of quality of life due to residents receiving improper care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #8) for care plan revisions, in that: Resident #8's care plan was not revised to reflect the resident's change to DNR status after [DATE]; the resident's care plan still indicated the resident was Full Code. This failure could place residents at risk of having their end of life wishes dishonored, and of having CPR performed against their wishes.
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 necessary services to maintain grooming, and personal hygiene for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #37) reviewed for ADLs, in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #37 received or documented baths or showers between 12/21/2023 and 1/12/2024. This failure could place residents who were dependent on staff for ADL care at risk for loss of dignity, risk for infections, and a diminished quality of life.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure incontinent bladder residents received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and restore continence to the extent possible for 2 of 12 residents (Residents #28 and #57) reviewed for indwelling catheters and perineal/incontinent care, in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #28 indwelling catheter was attached to prevent pulling or tugging to the urethra. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #57 foreskin was pulled back during perineal care. These failures could place residents at risk for discomfort, urethral trauma (injury to the duct in which urine is transported out of the body from the bladder), and urinary tract infections due to improper care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide routine and emergency drugs and biologicals to its residents for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #85) reviewed for medication administration, in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #85 was administered Cinacalcet [used to treat increased amounts of a certain hormone in people with long-term kidney disease who are on dialysis] as ordered 14 times between 08/21/2023 and 09/06/2023. This deficient practice could place all residents at risk for not receiving the intended therapeutic effect of medications as their ordered by their physician resulting in diminished health and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate was not 5% or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 28%, based on 7 errors out of 25 opportunities, which involved (Resident #37) and 1 of 2 staff (LVN C ) reviewed for medication administration, in that: LVN C failed administered medications to Resident #37 on 01/18/24 according to the physician's orders and per professional standards, which resulted in a 28% medication administration error rate. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not receiving the therapeutic effects of their medications and possible adverse reactions.
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 permitted only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for 1 of 3 medication carts (Medication Cart for Halls B & E) reviewed for medication storage, in that; The Medication Cart for Halls B & E Cart was not locked when it was left unattended in the common area of the 100 hallway. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of medication misuse or drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly, for 1 of 1 facility reviewed, in that: There were a number of varied pieces of furniture and large durable medical equipment were haphazardly stacked near the portable storage units in the facility's back parking lot. This failure could lead to loss of quality of life due to and environment fostering the presence of insects and/or rodents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident that were accurately documented for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #78) reviewed for accurate medical records, in that: 1. Resident #78's allergies were documented incorrectly to include acetaminophen [an over-the-counter medication to alleviate pain or fever]. 2. Resident #78's bathing assistance was listed as extensive assistance when he was independent or set up assistance. These deficient practices could affect place residents at risk of not receiving appropriate care through inaccurate documentation possibly resulting in deterioration in condition, exacerbation of disease process, undermedication, or a delay in assessments and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to utilize the services of a registered nurse for at least eight consecutive hours per day, seven days per week for 5 days out of 30 (11/5/23, 11/12/23, 11/23/23, 11/25/23, and 11/26/23) reviewed for nursing services, in that: The facility did not utilize the services of a registered nurse for at least eight consecutive hours per day, seven days per week on 11/5/23, 11/12/23, 11/23/23, 11/25/23, and 11/26/23. This deficient practice could place all residents at risk of not receiving adequate care.
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, recognizing each resident's individuality for 4 of 4 Residents (Residents #5, #3, #4, and #6) reviewed for residents rights, in that: 1. Resident #5 was not served his lunch meal while other residents including his table mate ate and finished his meal. 2. Residents #3 and #4 received their trays after most of the tables in the dining room had received their trays and were already eating for a few minutes. 3. Resident #6 was not provided with a sack lunch before leaving the facility for a dialysis appointment. These deficient practices could affect residents self-esteem and feelings of dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1), reviewed for comprehensive care plans in that: Resident #1's care plan failed to address that the resident was exit seeking and a wander risk. These deficient practices could affect residents with comprehensive care plans and could result in missed or delayed continuity of care.
13 fire safety citations on file: 5 on April 3, 2026, 4 on February 12, 2025, 4 on January 13, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 3, 2026 | Fine | $10,631 |
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) | 3.59 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.19 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.27 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.18 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.23 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 35.4% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.77 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 3.72 on weekdays and 3.27 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.52 in April to June 2025 to 3.59 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 | 3.59 | 0.19 | 3.72 | 3.27 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 79 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.58 | 0.16 | 3.69 | 3.31 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 82 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.60 | 0.14 | 3.74 | 3.25 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 78 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.52 | 0.12 | 3.64 | 3.23 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 78 |
| 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 | 6.0 | 15.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.0 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.6 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 34.3 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.9 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Southeast Nursing & Rehabilitation Center'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. 9 eligible stays.
10.5% 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. 37 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. 12 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. 8 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: 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. 11 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: 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. 11 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. 2 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 Ruby Healthcare, a group of 7 nursing homes averaging 3 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hooper, Grady | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/29/2024 | |
| Mesquite Hc SNF LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 03/01/2024 | |
| Southeast Hc LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 03/01/2024 | |
| Beasley, Genetta | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/01/2024 | |
| Scheiner, Eliezer | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/29/2024 | |
| Silberstein, Ari | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/29/2024 | |
| Ellenbogen, Moss | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 03/01/2024 | |
| 434 Paza Drive LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/02/2025 | |
| Aysan Tr | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/02/2025 | |
| Brass Tx Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/02/2025 | |
| Cape Home Holdco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/02/2025 | |
| Gold Tx Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/02/2025 | |
| Red Brass Holdco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/02/2025 | |
| Silver Tx Trust | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/02/2025 | |
| Beasley, Genetta | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/02/2025 | |
| Prasad, Jyotsna | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 04/02/2025 |
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.