9922 State Hwy. 151, San Antonio, TX 78251 · Bexar County · (210) 546-2273
124 certified beds, about 108 residents a day · Government - Hospital district · Medicare and Medicaid since 2011
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 676281 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 12, 2026, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Texas average is 9.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 29 health citations since November 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $20,156 in the last three years; the largest was $12,519, and the latest is dated November 8, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.56 hours per resident per day, against 3.39 across Texas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.64 of those hours.
29.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Texas average 55.3%).
CMS links it to The Ensign Group, an affiliated group of 344 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 29 health citations on file.
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 for 2 of 11 Residents (Resident #118 and Resident #162) and 1 of 5 medication carts (100 Hall Medication Aide Cart) reviewed for medication storage:1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #162 did not have a prescription medication of Mupirocin Ointment 2% at the bedside.2. The facility failed to ensure the 100 Hall Medication Aide Cart was not unlocked and unattended. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #118 did not have medication in their room. These failures could affect residents who received medications in the facility and place them at risk for not receiving the correct medications, medication misuse or drug diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen. The facility stored one food item without the manufacturer's use-by date and one food item beyond the manufacturer's use-by date. 2. The facility failed to ensure pureed bread and baked beans were maintained at the required holding temperature of 135 degrees on the steam table. These deficient practices had the potential to place residents at risk for consuming unsafe food and developing foodborne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents have the right to formulate an advance directive for 2 of 3 residents (Residents #153 and #162) reviewed for advanced directives:The facility failed to determine upon admission whether Resident #153 and Resident #162 had an advanced directive, and if not, determined whether the Resident or Resident Representative wished to formulate an advanced directive. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not having their wishes known, which could affect whether they receive medical treatment according to their rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident's environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible, for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #118), reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to ensure Resident #118 did not have a pair of nails clippers in their room. This failure could place the resident at risk of injury and contribute to avoidable accidents and a decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that were complete and accurately documented for 1 of 6 residents (Residents #11) reviewed for accuracy of records: The facility failed to ensure Resident #11 had the correct order for their DNR code status. The failure could affect residents whose records were maintained by the facility and could place the residents at risk of errors in care and treatment.
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 2 of 6 residents (Residents #10 and #31) reviewed for infection control:The facility failed to ensure Resident #10's indwelling urinary catheter tube and urine bag were not resting on the floor and Medication Aide E used appropriate hand hygiene when moving from a clean area to a dirty area when administering medications to Resident #31. These failures could place residents at risk for cross-contamination and infection and could result in illness due to improper care practices.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events that caused the allegation involved abuse or resulted in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that caused the allegation did not involve abuse and did not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for reporting allegations of ANE. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, the facility had evidence that all alleged violations were thoroughly investigated for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for investigation of alleged ANE. The facility failed to investigate an allegation of ANE when Resident #1's family member alleged Resident #1 was neglected and caused a skin ulcer. This failure could place residents at risk of being neglected.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that it was free of a medication error rate below 5 percent (%) or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 16.12% based on 5 out of 31 opportunities which involved 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) and 1 of 1 staff (LPN B) observed for medication administration errors. LPN B administered Docusate Sodium (a stool softener used to relieve constipation), Fluoxetine HCl (a drug used to treat depression), Meloxicam (an analgesic, a drug used to reduce pain and swelling), Methenamine Hippurate (a drug used to prevent recurrent urinary tract infections), and Polyethylene Glycol (a drug used as a laxative to relieve constipation) to Resident #1 at 12:12 p.m., one (1) hour and twelve (12) minutes after the scheduled administration window, 07:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services including procedures that assure the accurate dispensing and administering to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for pharmacy services. 1. MA A failed to remove Resident #1's Lidoderm Patch (an analgesic, a patch containing numbing medication for pain) according to physicians' orders and manufacturer's instructions on 03/07/2026. 2. MA A incorrectly dated and did not initial Resident #1's Lidoderm Patch 03/06/2026 when administering the patch on 03/07/2026. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving the intended therapeutic effects of prescribed medications or receiving potentially harmful side effects from prescribed medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) whose assessments were reviewed, in that: Resident #1's wandering assessment and MDS did not reflect he had wandering behaviors. 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 ensure the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments to reflect the current condition for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care plan revisions. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's care plan was comprehensive and updated to reflect Resident #1 had wandering and exit seeking behaviors. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not receiving appropriate interventions to meet their current needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional guidelines for three of eight medication carts (200 hall nurse cart, 200 hall medication aide cart, and 400 hall medication aide cart) assessed for medication storage and labeling. The nurse cart for the 200 hall contained two unlabeled pills lying in the drawer. The medication aide cart for the 200 hall contained one unlabeled pill lying in the drawer. The medication aide cart for the 400 hall contained four unlabeled pills lying in the drawer. This failure could place residents who receive medications at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic effects of their prescribed medications and experiencing unintended and harmful effects of medications prescribed to others.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmacological 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 2 of 10 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2 ) reviewed for pharmacy services. 1. LVN A administered Cefazolin (Antibiotic) 6 GM in 250 ML instead of Cefazolin 6 GM in 1000 ML to Resident # 1. The non-compliance was identified as past non-compliance. The noncompliance began on 06/11/2024 and ended on 06/12/24. The facility had corrected the non-compliance before the survey began. 2. The facility failed to ensure that controlled medications were secured. The non-compliance was identified as past non-compliance. The noncompliance began on 7/17/2024 and ended on 7/18/24. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care, in that: The facility failed to coordinate care with hospice and implement interventions to address Resident #1's mental health needs. Resident #1 was re-admitted to the facility with the diagnosis of depression, hospice had communicated to the facility staff that was overheard by ADON C, that the resident had tried to harm himself when he was at home. On 11/01/2024, Resident #1 hung himself with a gait belt attached to the bar in the closet that resulted in his death. An IJ was identified on 11/04/2024. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 8:32 PM. [...]
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 includes measurable objective and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan with interventions that addressed Resident #1's diagnosis of depression and anti-depressant medication Zoloft. This failure could place residents at risk for not having their needs and preferences met.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's choices for 2 of 3 Residents (Residents #1 and #2) reviewed for treatments and services. The facility failed to ensure Residents #1(missed 2 IV dressing changes) and #2(missed 2 IV dressing changes) received dressing changes to their intravenous catheters every 7 days as ordered by physician. and the failure to obtain an MD order for the dressing change for Resident #2 until 9 days after admission. This deficient practice could affect residents with intravenous catheters and place them at risk for infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records on each resident that were accurate and complete in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices for 2 03 3 residents (Resident #1 and #2) in that: LVN A and LVN B failed to demonstrate competency in skills by failing to correctly document and perform IV dressing changes on Resident #1 and Resident #2. This failure has potential to affect residents by placing them at an increased and unnecessary risk of pain and exposure to communicable diseases and infection.
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: 1. There was a gallon-sized container of sweet tea in the walk-in cooler that had been opened and was not labeled with a use-by date. 2. The DS wore a wristwatch on his left wrist while engaged in food preparation in the kitchen. 3. DA C wore a wristwatch on her left wrist while engaged in food preparation in the kitchen. 4. [NAME] D had facial hair and was not wearing a facial hair restraint while engaged in food preparation in the kitchen. These failures could place residents who received meals and/or snacks from the kitchen at risk for food borne illness.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 3 of 5 residents (Resident #17, #253, and #80) reviewed for infection control, in that: 1. Medication Aide G did not utilize appropriate hand hygiene during the medication pass. 2. LVN A did not utilize appropriate hand hygiene during the medication pass. 3. Medication Aide F did not sanitize the wrist blood pressure cuff between resident use. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of infection or transmission of communicable diseases and a decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level 1 was completed accurately 1 of 1 Residents (Resident #84). The facility failed to provide a PASRR level I screening for Resident #84 upon admission who had a mental health diagnosis which would have triggered the completion of a PASRR level 1 screening. This failure could place residents who had a positive PASRR Level 1 screening at risk for not receiving care and service to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being consistent with the resident's comprehensive assessment and plan of care for one of nineteen residents (Residents #251) reviewed for baseline care plan. The facility failed to provide Resident #251 with perineal care after deactivating Resident #251's call light. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for not having care and services provided to meet their needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs for 2 of 22 residents (Resident #16 and #8) reviewed for care plans in that: 1. Resident #16's comprehensive care plan did not reflect the resident was no longer receiving hospice services. 2. Resident #8's comprehensive care plan did not reflect the resident was not using a leg/foot brace. These failures could place residents at risk of receiving inadequate interventions not individualized to their care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible for 1 of 32 resident (Resident #261) reviewed for accidents and hazards. The facility failed to remove a syringe with open needle attached from Resident #261's room. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of harm or injury and contribute to avoidable accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents who are fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #80) reviewed for gastrostomy tube management. The facility failed to ensure Resident #80 was provided with the correct water flushes before and after medication administration through a gastrostomy tube (g-tube, feeding tube). This failure could place residents who received medications by gastrostomy tube at risk for injury, aspiration into the lungs (fluid or food enter the lungs accidently), decreased quality of life, hospitalization and decline in health.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were given psychotropic medications with consent for 1 (Resident #55) of 5 Residents, reviewed for unnecessary psychotropic medications. The facility failed to obtain written consent before providing Resident #55 with Zoloft (an antidepressant used to treat depression). This deficient practice could affect residents who received psychotropics in the facility and put them at risk for adverse consequences such as impairment or decline in an individual's mental or physical condition or functional or psychosocial status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles in locked compartments and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for 1 of 9 Medication Carts (300 Hall Med Aide Medication Cart) reviewed for storage of drugs, and 1 of 6 residents reviewed during the medication pass in that: 1. The 300 Hall Med Aide Medication Cart was left unlocked and unattended. 2. LVN A left medications unattended at Resident #80's bedside during the medication pass. This failure could place residents at risk of medication misuse and diversion.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received adequate supervision with the use of a mechanical lift to prevent accidents for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #2). The facility failed to ensure adequate supervision while utilizing the mechanical lift to move Resident #2 in the shower room, resulting in Resident #2 having a fractured nose and a laceration to the hand. The failure contributed to Resident #2's fractured nose and laceration of the hand. This failure could place residents who required the use of a mechanical lift for accidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure personal privacy during personal care for 1 of 10 residents (Resident #1) during incontinent care in that: CNA A completed perineal care on Resident #1 with the curtain and bedroom door both left open. This failure could place residents at risk of a lack of dignity.
3 fire safety citations on file: 2 on June 12, 2026, 1 on April 25, 2025.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| November 8, 2024 | Fine | $12,519 |
| November 8, 2024 | Payment Denial | 1 days from December 12, 2024 |
| November 10, 2023 | Fine | $7,637 |
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) | 3.56 | 3.39 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.64 | 0.43 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.09 | 2.98 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.05 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.87 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 29.2% | 55.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 28.6% | 54.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.67 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 3.75 on weekdays and 3.09 on weekends, 18% 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 3.62 in April to June 2025 to 3.56 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 | 3.56 | 0.64 | 3.75 | 3.09 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 108 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.62 | 0.57 | 3.81 | 3.16 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 105 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.44 | 0.54 | 3.56 | 3.13 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 110 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.62 | 0.51 | 3.77 | 3.25 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 107 |
| 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 | 10.3 | 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 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.0 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.1 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.7 | 14.0 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 3.8 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 9.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 25.8 | 25.7 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.5 | 12.3 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.9 | 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 Westover Hills Rehabilitation and Healthcare's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (53.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
53.6% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Texas: 116 better, 50 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 69 eligible stays.
10.4% 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. 102 eligible stays.
7.5% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Texas: 4 better, 11 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 55 eligible stays.
88.7% 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. 62 residents counted.
0.8% this home
Median of homes: Texas0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 127 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Texas1.3% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 127 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: Texas98.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 50 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: GUADALUPE COUNTY HOSPITAL BOARD. CMS links this home to The Ensign Group, a group of 344 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guadalupe County Hospital Board | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 12/01/2023 |
| Fiazuddin, Faraz | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 03/30/2023 | |
| Hoyler, Jerry | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Burnam, Soon | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Gann, Kody | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Keetch, Chad | Corporate officer | Individual | 03/01/2011 | |
| Sage Terrace Healthcare LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Fiazuddin, Faraz | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/30/2023 | |
| Hoyler, Jerry | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 12/01/2023 | |
| Ensign Services Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 08/19/2019 | |
| Sage Terrace Healthcare LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/06/2025 | |
| Standard Bearer Healthcare Op, LP | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| The Ensign Group Inc | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 12/01/2023 | |
| Fiazuddin, Faraz | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 03/30/2023 | |
| Hoyler, Jerry | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 12/01/2023 |
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.