6211 S New Braunfels Ave, San Antonio, TX 78223 · Bexar County · (210) 531-0569
124 certified beds, about 83 residents a day · Government - Hospital district · Medicare and Medicaid since 2011
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 676297 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on March 25, 2026, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 34 health citations since November 2023, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (3 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $153,825 in the last three years; the largest was $96,694, and the latest is dated February 24, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.71 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.25 of those hours.
97.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to Creative Solutions in Healthcare, an affiliated group of 149 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 34 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to establish a grievance policy to ensure the prompt resolution of all grievances regarding the residents' rights for 1 (Resident #1) of 1 residents that either the resident or their responsible party had a complaint or concern related to the facility reviewed for grievances. The facility failed to implement a grievance process to address resident and responsible party concerns or complaints when Resident #1's next of kin brought complaints to the facility staff that were not addressed as grievances. This failure could place the residents at risk for a decreased quality of life and care within their living environment, and/or not having their needs met.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident that were complete, accurately documented, readily accessible, and systematically organized for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for medical records. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #1's insulin documentation was accurately recorded in the electronic medical record. This failure could place residents at risk for errors in care and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain medical records that were complete and accurately documented in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices for 4 of 5 residents (Residents #1, #2, #3, and #4) reviewed for medical records. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's medication administration report did not contain blanks. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's medication administration report did not contain blanks. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3's medication administration report did not contain blanks. 4. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4's medication administration report did not contain blanks. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of delayed or improper care due to inaccurate medical records.
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 disease and infection for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for infection control: The facility failed to ensure LVN A maintained proper hand hygiene during wound care for Resident #1 during a wound care observation. This failure could place residents at-risk for infection due to improper care practices.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and records review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to meet a resident's medical and nursing needs for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care planning. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's comprehensive care plan included the resident's need for oral suction. This failure could result in residents not receiving the intended care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 had a signed, physician's order for oral suctioning. This failure could result in residents not receiving intended care.
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 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care plans in that: Resident #1's comprehensive person-centered care plan did not address interventions due to the diagnosis of osteopenia (a condition of low bone mineral density, weakening bones). This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving appropriate treatment and services.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to implement a grievance policy that included ensuring that all grievances shared in resident council were transcribed to grievance forms and submitted to the Grievance Official for 6 out of 6 residents that were present for Resident Council at any given time and complained month to month anonymously. The facility failed to address resident grievances mentioned in the resident council through the appropriate processes. This failure could place the residents at risk for a decreased quality of life and care within their living environment, and/or not having their needs met.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to use the services of a registered nurse of at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week for 9 of 59 days reviewed (2/17/2026, 2/21/2026, 2/23/2026, 2/24/2026, 2/26/2026, 3/3/2026, 3/7/2026, 3/12/2026, 3/21/2026) reviewed for RN coverage as well as having a designated Director of Nursing from 02/14/2026 through 3/24/2026. The facility failed to ensure they had an RN charge nurse on duty on 2/17/2026.2/21/2026, 2/23/2026, 2/24/2026, 2/26/2026, 3/3/2026, 3/7/2026, 3/12/2026, 3/21/2026. The facility failed to ensure that an RN served as a designated Director of Nursing from 2/14/2026 through 3/24/2026. This failures could place the residents at risk of missed nursing assessments, interventions, care and treatment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a medication error rate was not 5 percent or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 8%, based on 2 errors out of 25 opportunities, which involved 2 of 6 residents (Residents #47 and #75) and 3 of 4 staff (LVN B, and LVN C) reviewed for medication administration reviewed for medications errors. LVN F administered Resident #47's Injectable insulin without first priming the pen-injector. LVN L failed to administer Resident #75's insulin. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving therapeutic effects of their medications and possible adverse reactions.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication administration errors for 5 of 12 Residents (Residents #2, #40, #60, #68, and #78) reviewed for medication administration of medications with parameters. -The facility failed to ensure nursing staff administered blood pressure medications to Residents #2, #40, #60, #68, and #78 per their prescribed orders. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic effects of their prescribed medications.
Inspectors wroteBased upon staff interview, review of medical records, and review of the policy, the facility failed to ensure each resident is screened for a Mental Disorder (MD) or Intellectual Disability (ID) prior to admission of 2 residents in the sample of 6 (Resident #4 and Resident #50) reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR). The facility failed to ensure Resident #4 had an accurate PASRR Level 1 (PL1) Screening for mental disorder or intellectual disability prior to admission. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #50 had an accurate PASRR Level 1 Screening which indicated a diagnosis of mental illness. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving needed assessments (PASRR Evaluation), individualized care, and specialized services to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services which included procedures that assured the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals to meet the needs of each resident, for 2 of 8 residents (Residents #51 and #94) reviewed for administration and documentation of medications. On 3/24/2026 at 7:34 AM LVN C said she had administered Resident #51's medications but had not documented the administration. On 3/24/2026 at 7:34 AM LVN C said she had administered Resident #94's medications but had not documented the administration. These failures could place residents at risk for not receiving the therapeutic effects of their medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were locked in compartments under proper temperature controls and permitted only authorized personnel to have access to the keys, for 1 of 6 medication carts (the 400-hall medication cart) reviewed for security. LVN A left the 400-hall medication cart unsupervised, unattended, and unlocked for more than 9 minutes. This failure could place residents at risk for misappropriation of property and or not receiving the therapeutic effects of their medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, maintain medical records on each resident that were complete, accurately documented, readily accessible, and systematically organized for 1 resident in the sample of 6 (Resident #4) reviewed for clinical records. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4's schizophrenia and bipolar disorder diagnosis was accurately documented in his medical diagnosis list and MDS Assessment. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the care and services needed due to inaccurate or incomplete clinical records.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that each resident room marked as available for new residents was adequately equipped to allow new residents to call for staff assistance through a communication system that would relay the call directly to a staff member or centralized staff work area for one room (215) of four observed that had a welcome sign and future resident listed outside of room. The facility failed on 3/22/2026 to ensure that the call light system was properly working for potential new resident rooms for room [ROOM NUMBER]. The call light box was hanging from the wall. This failure could place new residents at risk of not having a means of directly contacting staff in an emergency or when they needed support for daily living.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the status of the residents for 1of 9 residents (Residents #1) reviewed for resident assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's diet was accurately reflected on her significant change MDS assessment, dated 02/17/2025. This failure could place residents at risk of missed or inaccurate care.
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 disease and infection for 1 of 3 residents (Residents #2) reviewed for infection control, in that: The facility failed to ensure LVN B removed soiled gloves, sanitized hands, and put on clean gloves after cleaning feces from the anal area of Resident #2 and before placing a clean incontinent brief on the resident. These failures could place residents at-risk for infection due to improper care practices.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to implement written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse neglect for 1 of 11 Residents (Resident #1) whose records were reviewed for abuse and neglect. 1. Resident #1 told RT A she yelled at her on 03/01/2025 when Resident #1 wanted a larger cup of ice. RT A wrote the allegation was made by Resident #1 in Resident#1's progress notes without reporting the allegation to the Administrator that RT A had yelled at Resident #1. 2. The ADM reported the allegation of Resident Abuse on 03/03/2025, 2 days later to the State Agency when RT A's progress note for Resident #1 was reviewed. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The noncompliance began on 03/01/2025 and ended on 03/03/2025. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown origin are reported immediately, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made for 1 of 3 (Resident #1) residents involved involved in in incidents reviewed for reporting allegations of abuse and neglect 1. Resident #1 told RT A she yelled at her on 03/01/2025 when Resident #1 wanted a larger cup of ice. RT A wrote the allegation was made by Resident #1 in Resident#1's progress notes without reporting the allegation to the Administrator that RT A had yelled at Resident #1. 2. The ADM reported the allegation of Resident Abuse on 03/03/2025, 2 days later to the State Agency when RT A's progress note for Resident #1 was reviewed. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident was free from neglect for 1 of 5 Residents (Residents #1) reviewed for neglect. During a capping trial on 02/14/2025, Resident #1 was not monitored, and no staff were physically present in her room. Resident #1 became unresponsive and had to be transported to the ER for treatment. The facility did not have a policy/procedure in place for capping trials at the time of the incident. Resident #1 died at the hospital on [DATE]. This failure resulted in an IJ on 02/21/2025 at 5:00 PM. While the IJ was removed on 02/23/2025 at 3:45 PM., the facility remained out of compliance at a level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that was not immediate jeopardy with a scope of isolated due to facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of their plan of removal. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, including tracheostomy care and tracheal suctioning, is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 5 Residents (Residents #1) reviewed for respiratory care. During a capping trial on 02/14/2025, Resident #1 was not monitored, and no staff were physically present in her room. Resident #1 became unresponsive and had to be transported to the ER for treatment. The facility did not have a policy/procedure in place for capping trials at the time of the incident. Resident #1 died at the hospital on [DATE]. This failure resulted in an IJ on 02/21/2025 at 5:00 PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, 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 resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents for 3 of 7 residents (Resident # 2, Resident # 28 and Resident # 80) reviewed for call light. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 2's, Resident # 28's and Resident # 80's call light was within reach. This failure could place residents at risk of achieving independent functioning, dignity, and well-being.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 22 residents (Resident #48) whose assessments were reviewed, in that: Resident #48's diagnosis of anxiety was not identified as an active diagnosis on the resident's quarterly MDS assessment with an ARD of 11/25/2024. This failure could place residents at risk for inadequate care due to inaccurate assessments.
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 resident rights, that include measurable objectives and time frames to meet residents' mental, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment and to ensure that the comprehensive care plan described the services that were to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, including the right to refuse treatment for 1 of 22 residents (Resident #48) reviewed for care plans. Resident #48's diagnosis of depression and anti-anxiety medication (Ativan) were not addressed in her comprehensive care plan. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for, 1 of 4 medication carts observed, in that: The Nurse Medication Cart in the 200-hall contained seven loose medication pills. This failure could place residents who receive medications at risk for not receiving the intended therapeutic effects of medications.
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, in that: The facility failed to properly store a 6.5 lb. container of strawberries in the walk-in cooler. This failure could place residents who received meals and/or snacks from the kitchen at risk for food borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident that were complete and accurately documented for 2 (Residents #43 and #45) of 22 residents reviewed for medical records. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #43's advance directive was listed on the resident's face sheet, consolidated physician's orders, and upon accessing the resident's electronic health record. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 45's diet order was clarified. These deficient practices could place residents at risk of improper care due to inaccurate medical records.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, including injuries of unknown source were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events that caused result in serious bodily injury for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) whose records were reviewed for abuse and neglect: LVN A failed to report to the Administrator about an allegation of abuse when she was made aware by Resident #1's family member that LVN B was allegedly verbally and physically abusive to Resident #1 when a grievance/complaint report was made on 07/13/24. These deficient practices could affect residents by contributing to further abuse and neglect .
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents have a right to be treated with respect and dignity, including: the right to retain and use personal possessions, including furnishings, and clothing, as space permits, unless to do so would infringe upon the rights or health and safety of other residents, for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for resident rights, in that: The facility failed to allow Resident #1 to keep his off-loading boots or return them to him or his family. This failure could place residents needing assistance at risk for diminished quality of life, loss of dignity and self-worth.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide necessary services to maintain good grooming, and personal hygiene for residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living for 1 of 6 Residents (Resident #1) whose records were reviewed for grooming and personal hygiene. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received scheduled showers on 7/10/24 and 7/12/24. This failure could affect any resident and contribute to feelings of poor self-esteem and hopelessness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review revealed the facility failed to provide specialized rehabilitative services for 1 of 1 Resident's (Resident #1) whose records were reviewed for rehabilitative services. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was evaluated by PT for foot drop and a possible brace. This failure could place residents at risk of decline or decrease in their physical capabilities.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to keep the facility free from pests for 3 of 7 residents (Resident #1, Resident #2 and Resident #5) reviewed for pest control, in that: The facility failed to ensure an effective pest control program was in place to keep flies out of resident rooms resulting in an infestation of maggots in Resident #1's left heel wound. On 05/30/2024 at 5:16 p.m., an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified. While the IJ was removed on 5/31/2024 at 8:32 p.m., the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy due to the facility continuing to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of its Plan of Removal (POR). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan must be reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments for 1 of 24 residents (Resident #60) reviewed for care plans, in that: The facility failed to update Resident #60's care plan after the resident's physician discontinued the resident's order for CBD 2.5 mg : THC 2.5 mg gummies. This deficient practice could cause confusion for staff members responsible for medication administration and place residents at risk of receiving improper care.
7 fire safety citations on file: 3 on March 25, 2026, 4 on December 18, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| February 24, 2025 | Fine | $96,694 |
| June 20, 2024 | Fine | $57,131 |
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) | 3.71 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.25 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.12 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.14 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.32 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 97.2% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 100.0% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 6.01 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 3.95 on weekdays and 3.12 on weekends, 21% 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 3.65 in April to June 2025 to 3.71 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 | 3.71 | 0.25 | 3.95 | 3.12 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 83 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.68 | 0.28 | 3.86 | 3.21 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 83 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.16 | 0.22 | 3.31 | 2.80 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 89 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.65 | 0.29 | 3.87 | 3.11 | 0.0% | 1 of 91 | 80 |
| 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 | 9.3 | 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 | 1.7 | 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 | 7.3 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.8 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.6 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 27.9 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.5 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.0 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for The Rio at Mission Trails'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. 18 eligible stays.
9.9% 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. 29 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. 24 eligible stays.
45.5% 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. 22 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. 64 residents counted.
0.9% this home
Median of homes: Texas1.3% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 64 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. 15 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: WEST WHARTON COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. CMS links this home to Creative Solutions in Healthcare, a group of 149 nursing homes averaging 2.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Huggins, Linda | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Mak, David | Corporate officer | Individual | 05/17/2021 | |
| San Antonio II Enterprises, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2022 | |
| Blake, Gary | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2022 | |
| Blake, Malisa | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/01/2022 |
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.