No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Avir at Beeville

600 S Hillside Dr, Beeville, TX 78102 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 120 certified beds · (361) 358-8880 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Nov 20251 immediate-jeopardy citation$38,687 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (30% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2025
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
  • the CMS record shows $38,687 in federal fines (most recent 2024-06-16)

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★ 2/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
301 S Hillside Dr · (361) 929-7088 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
200 Hillside Dr · (361) 362-9984 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
H-E-B1.0 mi
100 E Houston St · (361) 358-4553 · Call to confirm hours
Park
1100 S Tyler St · (361) 358-4641 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 2 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating2★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased10.0%15.8%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight2.2%3.0%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.3%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%0.8%2.0%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.0%2.4%6.5%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury0.9%3.3%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened5.7%14.0%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication17.5%18.0%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%98.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers1.1%3.8%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control8.4%13.4%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table12.7%9.6%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.0%1.5%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%88.0%79.4%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.392.171.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.182.061.80worse

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

57.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 30 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

57.0%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
21.7%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.45U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.24hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.16hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.05hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 21.7% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 23 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.45 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 76% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 26% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF57.0%CMS range 41.7–68.751.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.8%CMS range 6.3–17.210.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge21.7%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge13.0%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge13.0%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified97.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.7%CMS range 3.9–13.47.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.041.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.48
RN hours/ resident / day
0.90
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.37
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.75
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.34
RN hoursweekends
29.7%
Total nursing turnover
14.3%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 60.9 residents a day — about 51% occupied, or roughly 59 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.75 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.48 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.37 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.29 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.93 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.54 to 0.34 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 30% is below the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

1
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-08-20)
5
at the previous standard inspection (2024-07-12)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-06-16 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were free from sexual abuse for 2 residents (Residents #2, and Resident #3) of 3 reviewed for abuse and neglect in that: The facility failed to supervise and protect Resident #2, who had a BIMS score of 3 (severe cognitive impairment), from harm and sexual abuse when Resident #2's family member provided video footage of Resident #3 grabbing Resident #2's breast on 11/7/23 and failed to protect vulnerable residents from harm and sexual abuse. An IJ was identified on 6/13/24. The IJ template was provided to the facility Administrator on 6/13/24 at 2:52pm. While the IJ was removed on 6/16/24 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 because of the facility's need to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. These deficient practices placed residents at risk of psychosocial…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-09 · tag F0628 — isolated
    Provide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one of five residents (Resident #1) and RP was notified of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing as soon as practicable before transfer or discharge. The facility failed to provide written notice of discharge to Resident #1 and his RP before he was discharged from the facility on 03/25/26. This failure could put residents at risk for inappropriate discharge from the facility.The findings included:Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 04/09/26 revealed a [AGE] year-old male with an initial admission date of 06/14/25 and a discharge date of 03/25/26. The pertinent diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder (a chronic mental health condition combining schizophrenia symptoms (hallucinations, delusions, disorganized speech) with a major mood disorder, such as depression or bipolar disorder) and dementia (a progressive syndrome characterized by a decline in memory, language, and thinking severe enough to…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-11-26 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — pattern
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to be free from abuse for 4 of 5 residents (Residents #1, #2, #3, and #4) reviewed for abuse, neglect, and exploitation. 1. The facility failed to protect Resident #2 from physical abuse when Resident #1 hit Resident #2 on the arm and kicked him in the leg on 10/15/2025. 2. The facility failed to protect Resident #1 from physical abuse when Resident #2 hit Resident #1 in the face for hitting him on the arm on 10/15/2025. 3. The facility failed to protect R #4 on 11/24/25 from being hit by R #3 in the hall of the women's locked unit. These failures could place residents at risk for physical or psychological harm or injury.Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 11/26/2025, revealed a [AGE] year-old male with an admission date of 06/14/2025. Resident #1's diagnoses included Myocardial Infarction (commonly known as a heart attack, occurred when blood flow to a part of the heart…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program, including hand hygiene, designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for one (Resident #2) of fifteen residents reviewed for infection control practices, in that: The facility failed to ensure the WCN performed hand hygiene for at least 20 seconds prior and after performing Resident #2's wound care. This failure could place residents that require wound care at risk for healthcare associated cross-contamination and infections. Findings include:Record review of Resident #2's face sheet dated 08/19/25 reflected a [AGE] year-old-female with an original admission date of 05/06/2012. Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease (progressive brain disorder that slowly damages memory, thinking, and learning skills), dementia (loss of thinking, remembering, and reasoning skills),…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-07-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based 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, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 1 Residents (Resident #1) reviewed for infection control and transmission-based precautions policies and practices. 1. CNA A failed to don the appropriate PPE before she entered Resident #1's room. This failure could place residents at risk for infection through cross-contamination of pathogens and infectious diseases. The findings include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 07/01/25, revealed a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, unspecified (progressive lung disease that makes it hard to breath), type 2 diabetes mellitus (the body has trouble controlling blood sugar and using…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-06-23 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — pattern
    Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of 1 of (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to administer from 1/03/2025-01/06/2025 Resident #1's anticoagulant medication Eliquis 5MG BID. LVN A and RN A did not administer Resident #1's anticoagulation medication from 01/03/2025-01/06/2025 as prescribed. This failure could place residents at risk for serious complications such as atrial fibrillation, blood clots, and/or stoke. The findings included: Record review of admission record dated 06/23/2025 revealed Resident #1 was an [AGE] year-old male, who was initially admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #1 was admitted with diagnoses of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), unspecified atherosclerosis of native arteries of extremities of right and…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-12 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolated
    Ensure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents receiving enteral feeding received appropriate care and services to prevent complication of enteral feeding for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #34) reviewed for enteral feeding. The facility failed to ensure LVN A verified placement and checked residual (something left behind) of Resident #34's G-tube (a tube into the stomach that delivers formula for nutrition and medication) by checking for tube placement and residual before enteral administration of water and medications. These failures could place residents receiving medications at increased risk of serious complications. Findings included: Review of Resident #34's face sheet dated 07/12/24, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] and initially admitted on [DATE] with diagnose that included dysphagia (difficulty or discomfort swallowing). Aphasia (a language disorder that affects how you communicate), cerebral infarction(stroke),…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-12 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care was provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 16 (Resident #34) residents reviewed for oxygen in that: Resident #34's oxygen tubing was not connected to the concentrator. This failure could place residents who receive oxygen at risk of developing respiratory complications and a decreased quality of care. The findings included: Record Review of Resident #34's face sheet dated 7/11/2024 indicated she was a [AGE] year old female initially admitted on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE] with the diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (lung disease that blocks the air flow), Cerebral Infarction (condition that occurs when blood flow is disrupted causing brain tissue to die), Severe vascular dementia (brain damage caused by multiple strokes), generalized muscle weakness. Record review of Resident #34's comprehensive care plan dated 6/21/2024 indicated…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-12 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolated
    Ensure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was not five percent or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 8% based on 2 errors out of 25 opportunities, which involved 1 of 4 residents (Resident #34) reviewed for medication errors. Resident #34's Acetaminophen-Codeine Oral Tablet was prescribed for pain and Memantine tablet was prescribed for Alzheimers were administered by Gastrostomy tube (G-Tube), and the medication cups used contained residual medication after the medications were administered. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving the desired therapeutic effect of their medications to manage their medical conditions and decline in health. Findings included: Review of Resident #34's face sheet dated 07/12/24, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] and initially admitted on [DATE] with diagnose that included dysphagia (difficulty or discomfort swallowing). Aphasia (a language…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-07-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolated
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 2 of 2 unit refrigerators (unit 1 and unit 2) reviewed for sanitation. The facility failed to ensure unit refrigerators were free of unlabeled and undated items. This failure could place residents at risk for foodborne illess due to cross contamination from unlabeled and undated items in the unit refrigerators. Findings included: Observation of 2 of 2 unit refrigerators (unit 1 and unit 2) on 07/11/24 at 4:10 pm revealed 1 near empty 24-ounce bottle of salad dressing, wrapped in a paper towel, was unlabeled and undated in unit 1. There were 3, 16.9-ounce bottles of water, 1 hamburger bun, 1 hamburger patty, and 1, 6.75-ounce near empty container of orange juice, all undated and unlabeled in unit 2. Interviews with LVN D and LVN E on 07/11/24 at 4:12 pm both stated the refrigerators were kept locked for patient safety because the residents were in the locked unit. They both stated only the nurse…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based 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 three (Resident #19 and Resident #34, and Resident #218) of five residents observed for infection control. 1. LVN A did not remove his gloves after insulin medication preparation for Resident #19 and administered insulin medication with the same pair of gloves. 2. The facility failed to ensure LVN A washed his hands or used hand sanitizer between glove changes while performing medication administration for Resident #34. 3. LVN F failed to wash her hands for 20 seconds or greater after performing wound care on Resident #218. These deficient practices have the potential to affect residents in the facility receiving care by exposing them to care that could lead to cross contamination and the spread of infection. Findings included:…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-06-16 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — pattern
    Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Evidence for tag placed under [NAME], [NAME] 609 - Reporting of Alleged Violations - E Based on, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, were reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours to the State Survey Agency and other officials, for 4 residents (Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #5, and Resident #1) of 6 residents reviewed for abuse, in that: 1. The facility did not report to the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC)/State Survey Agency and other officials for one incident of possible sexual abuse for Resident #2 and Resident #3 on 11/08/23. 2. The facility did not report to the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC)/State Survey Agency and other officials for one incident of an unwitnessed fall resulting in an elbow fracture for Resident #5. 4. The facility failed to report the allegation of abuse to the local law enforcement agency when they were made aware of an allegation of abuse regarding Resident #1 on 07/18/2023. These…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-04-14 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based 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 3 of 16 residents (Resident #29, Resident #17, Resident #16) reviewed for care plans in that: The facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #17, use of anticoagulant medication. The facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #29 placement in the memory unit. The facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #16 for a left femur fracture sustained on 3/8/2023. These deficient practices could place residents in the facility at risk of not being provided with the necessary care or services and having personalized plans developed to address their specific needs.…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$38,687 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $38,687 — penalty dated 2024-06-16

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to AVIR HEALTH GROUP — 116 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 52.3+1.7 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.4+1.6 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 51.8+2.2 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 53.6+0.4 vs chain
The other 115 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.3★, per CMS)
1 of 5Avir At BanderaBandera, TX 1 of 5Avir At Cowhorn CreekTexarkana, TX 1 of 5Avir At DallasDallas, TX 1 of 5Avir At LindaleLindale, TX 1 of 5Avir At StephenvilleStephenville, TX 1 of 5Avir at AdamsTemple, TX 1 of 5Avir at Arbor TerraceSan Angelo, TX 1 of 5Avir at BeaumontBeaumont, TX 1 of 5Avir at BeltonBelton, TX 1 of 5Avir at BoerneBoerne, TX 1 of 5Avir at BradburnGrand Saline, TX 1 of 5Avir at CaldwellCaldwell, TX 1 of 5Avir at Camp WoodCamp Wood, TX 1 of 5Avir at Citizens TrailTexarkana, TX 1 of 5Avir at ConverseConverse, TX 1 of 5Avir at GainesvilleGainesville, TX 1 of 5Avir at GarlandGarland, TX 1 of 5Avir at GiddingsGiddings, TX 1 of 5Avir at Heritage OaksLubbock, TX 1 of 5Avir at HillsboroHillsboro, TX 1 of 5Avir at HoustonHouston, TX 1 of 5Avir at Johnson CityJohnson City, TX 1 of 5Avir at KennedaleKennedale, TX 1 of 5Avir at KerrvilleKerrville, TX 1 of 5Avir at LongviewLongview, TX 1 of 5Avir at LubbockLubbock, TX 1 of 5Avir at Meadow CreekSan Angelo, TX 1 of 5Avir at MineolaMineola, TX 1 of 5Avir at New BraunfelsNew Braunfels, TX 1 of 5Avir at PatriotEl Paso, TX 1 of 5Avir at PortlandPortland, TX 1 of 5Avir at Rose TrailTyler, TX 1 of 5Avir at San AngeloSan Angelo, TX 1 of 5Avir at SeguinSeguin, TX 1 of 5Avir at TexarkanaTexarkana, TX 1 of 5Avir at Tierra EsteEl Paso, TX 1 of 5Avir at Veterans MemorialHouston, TX 1 of 5Avir at WestonTemple, TX 1 of 5Avir at WinnsboroWinnsboro, TX 1 of 5Avir at WoodlandsEastland, TX

Showing 40 of 115; lowest-rated first.

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
BELLVILLE HOSPITAL DISTRICTOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 03/01/2025
600 S HILLSIDE DRIVE PROPERTY OWNER, LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2025
WELLTOWER INCOrganization5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2025
WELLTOWER NNN GROUP, LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2025
WELLTOWER OP, LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2025
THOMPSON, JOHNNYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 03/01/2025
600 S HILLSIDE DRIVE OPCO, LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2025
FREUND, NOCHUMIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 03/01/2025
LARAKERS, JOSEPHIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2002
TRAVITSKY, AARONIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 03/01/2025
DAGAN, AMITAIIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/23/2025
GOLDBERGER, ABRAHAMIndividualINDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/23/2025
ROEL, ALICEIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 13 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

6 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$5.2M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-10.1%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$77K
Related-party expense1% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 73%Medicare 4%Other / private 23%

About 73% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $77K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$257per resident / day
operating cost
$7,813per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$234per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in TX

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.

Typical monthly cost in Texas
$5,627/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$7,604/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,666/mo
Assisted living

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 455923. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-20, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next