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

Las Alturas Nursing & Transitional Care Brownsvill

180 East Price Road, Brownsville, TX 78521 · For profit - Corporation · 122 certified beds · (956) 303-2002 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (956) 303-2002 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
1 immediate-jeopardy citation CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$8,434 in federal fines
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

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)
Worth asking about
  • inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
  • the CMS record shows $8,434 in federal fines (most recent 2025-06-12)
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)

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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 1 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
191 E Price Rd, Brownsville, TX 78521 · (956) 548-7400 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
98 E Price Rd · (956) 546-1900 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
488 Regal Rd · (956) 541-1191 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Bocachica Beach South Bay · 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 2025-10 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 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 rating4★
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 increased11.6%15.8%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight4.0%3.0%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.6%0.3%0.9%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.8%0.8%2.0%typical for the state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms1.1%2.4%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger 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 injury4.5%3.3%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened11.1%14.0%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication21.7%18.0%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine98.0%98.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers2.0%3.8%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control25.5%13.4%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table3.8%9.6%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.5%1.5%1.4%typical
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine96.9%88.0%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission24.7%25.7%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit8.9%12.3%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days0.602.171.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.042.061.80better

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.

22.7%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.36U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.13hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.17hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.06hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 22.7% 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 97 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 0.36 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 62% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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 SNFnot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNFnot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge22.7%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 discharge38.1%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 discharge25.8%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 identified83.5%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 setting97.8%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this 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 discharge98.7%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this 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 worsened0.7%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 hospitalizationnot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFsnot reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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

0.24
RN hours/ resident / day
0.96
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.12
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.31
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.09
RN hoursweekends
Total nursing turnover
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 122 beds and averages 97.2 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 25 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.31 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.24 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.12 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 2.93 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.46 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.30 to 0.09 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

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

8
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-07-01)
0
at the previous standard inspection (2024-06-21)

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.

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

  • Immediate jeopardy · J2025-06-12 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    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 adequate supervision was provided for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents and supervision. (Resident #1) The facility failed to ensure Resident#1 received adequate supervision to prevent elopement. Resident #1 eloped from the facility on 02/12/2025 and was found by the police department approximately 2700 feet (0.5 mile) away from the facility. The non-compliance was identified as past non-compliance. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 02/12/2025 and ended on 02/13/2025. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could prevent residents from receiving appropriate supervision which could lead to residents sustaining serious injury, harm, or death. Findings included: Record Review of Resident #1's electronic facility face sheet dated 06/11/2025, revealed she was an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included Unspecified Dementia, Hypertension (high blood pressure),…

    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 · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-24 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
    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 acquiring, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident for 1 (Resident#1) of 4 residents, reviewed for pharmaceutical services, in that:The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's physician ordered Midodrine (medication used to raise blood pressure) was held when her blood pressure was found to be out of parameters for administration.This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the therapeutic effect of their medication as ordered by the physician.Findings included:Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 6/24/26, reflected an [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 5/06/26. Her relevant diagnoses included end stage renal disease (most severe stage of kidney disease) and hypertension (high blood pressure).Record review of Resident #1's Nursing Home PPS MDS assessment, dated 5/24/26, reflected her BIMS score…

    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 · D2026-03-03 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles for 1 (200 hallway) of 4 medication carts. The facility failed to ensure the nurses medication cart for 200 hall was secured by a lock when it was left unattended by LVN A. This failure could place residents at risk of injury to other residents if medication left unsecured were consumed. Findings included: During an observation on 3/3/2026 at 03:40 p.m., revealed the 200 Hall nurse's medication cart was left unlocked and unattended in the 200 hallway. During the observation LVN A was called by surveyor and informed her that the medication cart was unlocked. LVN A secured the cart by locking it. During an interview on 3/3/2026 at 03:40 p.m., LVN A revealed she was responsible for the nurse's medication cart that was left unlocked. She stated he was expected to lock the nurse's medication cart when he walked away from it. She said that inside the cart there were medications of the residents for…

    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 · Dcited before2025-11-19 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
    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 (Resident # 1) of 2 residents reviewed for parenteral fluids.The facility failed to ensure on 8/15/2025 that Resident # 1's intravenous medication bag was correctly labeled with the resident's name.This failure could place residents at risk for medication error and delay in medication administration.The findings included: Record review of Resident # 1's MDS assessment, dated 8/01/2025, reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old-resident who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident had a diagnoses which included: Atrial Fibrillation (an irregular and often rapid heart rhythm in the upper chambers of the heart, called the atria), Coronary Artery Disease (a condition where the heart's blood vessels narrow or become blocked, usually due to a buildup of plaque…

    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 · D2025-07-01 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
    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 observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preference for 2 (Resident #34 and Resident #60) of 25 residents reviewed for call lights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #34 and Resident #60 had the call light within reach while in bed in their room. This failure could place residents at risk of being unable to obtain assistance or help when needed and in the event of an emergency. Findings were: 1.Record review of Resident #34's admission record dated 06/29/25 reflected a [AGE] year-old male with diagnoses of Unspecified Dementia (decline in thinking, learning and reasoning), Muscle Wasting And Atrophy Multiple Sites, Need for assistance with personal care, Difficulty in Walking. Record Review of Resident #34's Annual MDS dated [DATE] reflected a BIMS score of 14 indicating no cognitive impairment. Resident #34 used a wheelchair. 2. Record review of…

    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 · D2025-07-01 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
    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 ensure residents had the right to formulate an advance directive for 1 (Resident #173) of 8 residents reviewed for Advance Directives. The facility failed to ensure Resident #173's OOH-DNR was completed. The OOH-DNR form did not have the physician's signature. This failure could affect all residents who have implemented Advance Directives and established their choice not to be resuscitated at risk of receiving CPR against their wishes. The findings were: Record review of Resident #173's electronic face sheet dated [DATE] reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included: Respiratory Failure, Metabolic Encephalopathy (any disease or disorder of the brain, characterized by changes in brain function or structure), Heart Failure, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (a chronic lung disease that causes air flow limitation), Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension (high blood pressure), Acute Kidney…

    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 · D2025-07-01 · 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 record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to send a copy of the residents' discharge notice, prior to discharge, to the representative of the Office of State Long-Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman of the residents' transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move for 2 of 3 (Resident #1, Resident #41) reviewed for notifying the LTC Ombudsman of the residents' discharge. 1.Resident #1 was discharged to the hospital on [DATE] without a notice to the LTC state ombudsman. 2.Resident #41 was discharged home on [DATE] without a notice to the LTC state ombudsman. These failures could place residents at risk of not knowing their rights and receiving the services of the state LTC Ombudsman. Findings were: 1. Record review of Resident #1’s admission record dated 07/01/25 revealed Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old female with diagnoses of Acute Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia (lungs cannot supply oxygen to blood), Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus without Complications (high blood sugar levels), Chronic Obstructive…

    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 · D2025-07-01 · tag F0644 — isolated
    Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to coordinate assessments with the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) program to the maximum extent practicable to avoid duplicative testing and effort for 2 of 8 residents reviewed for PASRR. (Resident #20, Resident #22)1. The facility failed to refer Resident #20 for PASRR Level II assessment when the facility incorrectly coded her PASRR Level I assessment.2. The facility failed to refer Resident #22 for PASRR review following new mental illness diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder, added on 04/30/2025.These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving needed assessments (PASRR Evaluation), individualized care, and specialized services to meet their needs.Findings include:1. Record review of face sheet dated 06/30/25 indicated Resident #20 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included post-traumatic stress disorder, need for assistance with personal care, cognitive communication deficit.Resident #20's…

    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
  • Potential for harm · D2025-07-01 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    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 implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 22 residents (Resident #20) reviewed for care plans. The facility did not develop Resident #20's care plan related to diagnosis Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. These failures could place residents at risk for unmet care needs and decreased quality of care. Findings included: Record review of face sheet dated 06/30/25 indicated Resident #20 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included post-traumatic stress disorder, need for assistance with personal care, cognitive communication deficit. Record review of Resident #20's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated his BIMS score was 8 out of 15 showing moderate cognitive impairment. He was coded as having post-traumatic stress disorder. Observation 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-07-01 · 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 residents fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #29) reviewed for tube feeding management. The facility failed to ensure there were labels or instructions on Resident #29' s enteral nutrition supplemental feeding bottle on 06/29/25. These failures could place residents at risk for non-therapeutic responses to enteral feeding, as well as receiving the wrong feeding or receiving a feeding at the wrong rate. Findings included: Record review of Resident #29's face sheet, dated 06/29/25, revealed a [AGE] year-old female with an original admission date of 08/20/24 and a current admission date of 12/25/24. Diagnoses included Gastrostomy Status (a surgical procedure that creates an opening into the stomach, allowing for access to the stomach for feeding). Record review of Resident #29's Significant Change MDS Assessment, dated…

    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 · D2025-07-01 · 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 residents who needed respiratory care were provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences for 1 of 3 (Resident #61) residents reviewed for respiratory care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #61's oxygen was administered at the correct setting of 2 liters per minute on 06/29/2025 as ordered by the physician. These deficient practices could place residents who receive respiratory care at an increased risk of developing respiratory complications and a decreased quality of care. The findings included: 1.Record review of Resident #61's admission record dated 06/29/2025 reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 01/16/2025. Pertinent diagnoses included Pulmonary Fibrosis (a lung disease characterized by the scarring and thickening of lung tissue, specifically the interstitium, which is the area…

    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 · D2025-07-01 · 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, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program, designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections, for 1 of 4 Residents (Resident #39) that were observed for infection control in that: The facility failed to ensure CNA E performed proper hand hygiene during pericare (incontinent care) for Resident #39.The facility failed to ensure CNA F performed proper Foley catheter care for Resident #39. These deficient practices could place residents at risk for infections, healthcare associated cross contamination, and the spread of infection. Findings included: Record review of Resident #39's electronic face sheet dated 07/01/2025 reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included Personal History of Urinary Tract Infections, Acute Kidney Failure, Unspecified…

    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 · D2025-06-12 · tag F0655 — isolated
    Create and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
    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 reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement baseline care plans that included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care within 48 hours of admission for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #3 and Resident #2) reviewed for baseline care plans: 1. The facility failed to complete Resident #3's baseline care plan within 48 hours. 2. The facility failed to include in her baseline care plan that Resident #2's was admitted with a PICC line to upper right arm. These deficient practices could affect residents who receive care at the facility and could result in missed or inadequate care. The findings included: 1.Record review of Resident #3's face sheet dated 6/12/25 revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease (a progressive, irreversible brain disorder that primarily affects memory, thinking and reasoning eventually leading to difficulty with everyday tasks), dementia (a decline in cognitive…

    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
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-06 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
    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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services including procedures that ensure the accurate administering of all drugs and biologicals, to meet the needs of 1 of 3 (Resident #1) residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure that on 11/01/2024, LVN A signed off the administration of PRN acetaminophen to Resident #1 that was administered for a skin tear sustained after a transfer. These failure could place residents at risk for not receiving the therapeutic benefits of the prescribed medications and side effects from missed doses. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's Face Sheet, dated 11/05/2024, reflected a [AGE] year-old resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] and an original admission date of 09/07/2024 with diagnoses including myxedema coma (an extreme or decompensated form of hypothyroidism), type 2 diabetes mellitus ( a long term condition in which the body has trouble controlling blood sugar and using it…

    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

“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

$8,434 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $8,434 — penalty dated 2025-06-12

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.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
HEALTHCARE INVESTMENTS BROWNSVILLE LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 06/21/2024
HERITAGE BROWNSVILLE HEALTH DEVELOPMENT LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 06/21/2024
FELLBAUM 2023 DESCENDANTS TRUSTOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF16%since 06/21/2024
JAN STUDER 2023 SPOUSAL TRUSTOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF16%since 06/21/2024
KELLY FELLBAUM 2023 SPOUSAL TRUSTOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF16%since 06/21/2024
STUDER 2023 DESCENDANTS TRUSTOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF16%since 06/21/2024
THE BRYON AND RENA SEHLKE LIVING TRUSTOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF16%since 06/01/2024
JEFFERSON BANKOrganization5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTERESTsince 04/30/2024
TOUCHSTONE COMMUNITIES INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2024
CAMPBELL, LESLIEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2024
CARDENAS, MARISAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2024
CASTILLO, LYNNEAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2024
GILCREASE, CYNTHIAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2024
MENDOZA, ROMANIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2024
SEHLKE, BRYONIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/21/2024
ZUROVEC, DARRELLIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2024
TRIDENT HEALTH SERVICES INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 06/21/2024
RODRIGUEZ, JAIROIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2024

CMS files one row per role, so the 32 rows in the source record cover these 18 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

10 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.

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 745049. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-01, 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