La Frontera Nursing & Rehabilitation
7001 Mcpherson Rd., Laredo, TX 78041 · For profit - Corporation · 186 certified beds · (512) 643-4739 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- 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 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 $8,021 in federal fines (most recent 2024-11-21)
- 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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 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 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.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 14.6% | 15.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.6% | 3.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.3% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 2.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.6% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.3% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.1% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.8% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.8% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 8.3% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.5% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.2% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 64.9% | 88.0% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.8% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.8% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.20 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.68 | 2.06 | 1.80 | better |
* 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.
32.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 32 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 43% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% 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
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 32.6%CMS range 19.4–44.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.6%CMS range 8.0–17.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no 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 discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 setting | not 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 discharge | not 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 stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 12.5% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.0%CMS range 3.8–14.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.44 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS 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
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 186 beds and averages 108.4 residents a day — about 58% occupied, or roughly 78 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 3.24 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.57 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.98 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 2.61 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.49 on weekdays — 25% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.69 to 0.26 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
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.
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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-11-21 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for one (Resident #1) of one residents reviewed for supervision. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 received adequate supervision while Resident #1 was unaccounted for approximately 2 hours. On 04/21/2024, Resident #1 eloped from the facility through the employee dining area (formally assisted living dining area) door sometime after 1:00pm. The facility was notified by another local facility located approximately one block away at approximately 2:30 pm, that Resident #1 was brought into their facility after a passerby saw Resident #1 on the sidewalk by the road next to their facility. The passerby assumed Resident #1 resided at their facility since Resident #1 was located across the street. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The PNC began on 04/21/24 and ended on 09/17/24. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began.…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2025-05-29 · tag F0644 — patternCoordinate 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 incorporate the recommendations from the PASRR Level II determination and the PASRR evaluation report for 4 of 4 residents (Resident #7, #24, #25, and #26) reviewed for PASRR. The facility failed to initiate an NFSS within 20 business days following the date the services were agreed upon in the IDT meeting for Resident #7, #24, #25, and #26. This failure could cause residents with mental health disorders and psychiatric conditions to have a delay in services or not receive specialized services or equipment that may be needed. Findings included: Record review of Resident #7 ' s Authorization Request for NFSS most recent form was dated and submitted 11/05/2020. Record review of Resident #7 ' s face sheet, dated 05/28/25, revealed a [AGE] year-old male with an admission date of 06/10/2019. His diagnoses included Unspecified Intellectual Disabilities, Mental Disorder, Functional Quadriplegia (the inability to move due to a disability or physical condition,…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2025-05-29 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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, observation, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents were free of significant medication errors for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #9) reviewed for pharmacy services. 1. The facility failed to clarify the blood pressure parameters for Resident #9's Midodrine order. 2. The facility failed to administer Resident #9's order for Midodrine as prescribed in May of 2025 by administering Midodrine 8 times outside of physician ordered parameters. These failures could place residents at risk for complications, as well as jeopardize their health and safety. Findings included: Record review of Resident #9's face sheet, dated 05/28/25, revealed a [AGE] year-old male with an admission date of 04/06/2023. Resident #9's diagnoses included End Stage Renal Disease (an advanced stage of Chronic Kidney Disease when the kidneys can no longer filter waste or fluid from the blood), Dependence on Renal Dialysis, Type 2 Diabetes (a chronic condition characterized by insulin resistance and high…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2025-05-29 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for storage, preparation and sanitation. The facility failed to ensure the ice machine chute was free of scratches with removable black substances in the scratches and around them. The facility failed to ensure the meat slicer was covered properly when not in use and remained free of dust and debris. The facility failed to ensure hairnets were worn before entering the kitchen and made readily available. The facility failed to ensure the underside of the shelf directly above the steam table holding food was free of grime. The facility failed to ensure a pair of black plastic tongs were free of crevices and not melted. The facility failed to ensure an 18-quart container of rice did not have a scoop inside of it in the dry storage area. The facility failed to ensure proper scoops were used in the rice container instead of an ordinary cup. The facility failed to ensure the juice…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-29 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 each resident and/ or their representative and the IDT were invited to attend/participate in the care plan meetings including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #25) reviewed for care plan timing and revision. The facility failed to ensure Resident #25 had quarterly care plan reviews or meetings that included the appropriate IDT members and resident and/or resident representative in February 2025 and May 2025 (2 out of 3). The facility failed to ensure the care plan was revised within 7 days after the quarterly assessment that was dated 2/19/25. These failures could place residents at risk of not being able to attain or maintain their highest practicable level of physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The findings included: Record review of Resident #25's admission record reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included conversion disorder…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-19 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely 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 Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all alleged violations involving the reasonable suspicion of a crime were reported immediately to a law enforcement entity for its political subdivision, within two hours if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, for 1 (Resident #1 ) of 5 residents reviewed for abuse/neglect. The facility failed to report to the local law enforcement agency within the allotted time frame of 24 hours on 01/14/2025 around 6:30 PM when housekeeper A notified the administrator and DON of her suspicion of abuse regarding Resident #1. This failure could place all residents at increased risk for potential abuse due to unreported allegations of abuse. The findings included: Record review of Resident #1 face sheet dated 04/19/2025 revealed Resident #1 was an [AGE] year-old- male who was…
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.
- Potential for harm · F2024-09-01 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — widespreadConduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies.
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 conduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources were necessary to care for its residents competently during both day-to-day operations and emergencies for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for facility assessment. The facility did not have a completed Facility Assessment specific to cyber-attacks. This failure could place all residents at a risk for a lack of necessary resources and services. Findings Included: During an observation on 08/31/2024 at 11:00AM the facility had multiple resident's MARs and TARs on the conference table, and additionally upon further observation the clinical staff were using paper charting without any use of internet capable devices including computers and/or laptops. During the entrance conference and interview on 08/31/2024 at 11:07AM The administrator stated the facility was experiencing a facility wide technology black out. The administrator stated on Wednesday 08/28/2024, roughly around mid-day, noon…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-09-01 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to maintain medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that were complete, accurately documented, readily accessible and systematically organized for 5 residents (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, and Resident #5) who were reviewed for medical records. The facility failed to maintain accurate, thorough, complete and readily accessible medical records including physician orders, daily documented progress notes, blood pressure readings for residents that take blood pressure medications, glucose reading results for residents that have orders for glucose checks, MARs, and TARs for residents within the facility from 08/28/2024 thru 08/30/2024. This failure could have negatively affected the well-being of all residents as there was no documentation of services provided, if/when medications were administered appropriately in accordance with physician orders, and the residents current medical status. Findings included: Record review of minimally 5 residents was…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-03-14 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — patternProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
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 an ongoing program to support residents in their choice of activities, both facility-sponsored group and individual activities and independent activities, designed to meet the interests of and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident, encouraging both independence and interaction in the community, for 5 of 7 residents (Residents #17, #19, #26, #33, and #56) reviewed for individual in-room activity programming, as evidenced by: 1. Resident #17 did not have an in-room activity plan developed and implemented to meet her individual interests, abilities, and needs. 2. Resident #19 did not have an in-room activity plan developed and implemented to meet her individual interests, abilities, and needs. 3. Resident #26 did not have an in-room activity plan developed and implemented to meet her individual interests, abilities, and needs. 4. Resident #33 did not have an in-room activity plan developed 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for one of three residents (Resident # 81) reviewed for infection control practices. CNA A failed to perform hand hygiene and change gloves as appropriate while providing incontinence care for Resident #81. This failure could place residents at risk for cross contamination and the spread of infection. Finding include: Record review of Resident #81's face sheet, dated 03/12/24, reflected a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #81 had diagnoses which included UTI (infection of the urinary tract), retention of urine, and hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body). Record review of Resident #81's MDS Annual Assessment, dated 12/17/23 reflected Resident #81 was dependent with most…
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.
- No harm found · C2024-03-14 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
FACILITY Sufficient and Competent Nurse Staffing Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that the daily nurse staffing information, including the facility name, the current date, the total number and actual hours worked by RNs, LVNs, and CNAs, and the resident census, was posted on a daily basis for 3 of 3 staffing postings reviewed for daily staffing. The facility failed to update the daily staffing information posting on (include the dates) to reflect the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed staff. This failure could affect residents, their families, and facility visitors by placing them at risk of not having access to information regarding staffing data and facility census. Findings included: Observation on 03/11/24 at 10:00 am, revealed the daily staffing pattern was posted on the door of the medication room however the staffing information revealed the number of staff scheduled for each shift 6A-2P, 2P-10P, and 10P-6A. The staff posting should include the actual time worked during that shift for each category and type 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.
- 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.
Fines & penalties
$8,021 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,021 — penalty dated 2024-11-21
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 TOUCHSTONE COMMUNITIES — 25 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 4.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
The other 24 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
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 / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAVERICK COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 09/17/2024 |
| INTERNATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/17/2024 |
| BONILLA, NESTOR | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2007 |
| LAREDO OPERATOR 3, LTD | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/09/2025 |
| GONZALES, RICARDO | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/12/2024 |
| CASTILLO, LYNNEA | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/09/2025 |
| VON DOHLEN, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/29/2025 |
| VON DOHLEN, PATRICK | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/29/2025 |
| VON DOHLEN, TERESA | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/29/2025 |
| VON DOHLEN, TIMOTHY | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/29/2025 |
| ZUROVEC, DARRELL | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/09/2025 |
| AEGIS THERAPIES, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/17/2024 |
| CARVAJAL PHARMACY LTC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/17/2024 |
| CHERIE VON DOHLEN BY PASS TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/17/2024 |
| CHVD 2020 LIFETIME FAMILY TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/17/2024 |
| CTVD HOLDINGS LTD | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/17/2024 |
| LAREDO REALTY 3, LTD. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/17/2024 |
| NUTRITIOUS LIFESTYLES, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/17/2024 |
| PLANTE & MORAN PLLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/17/2024 |
| TDVD, LTD. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/17/2024 |
| TGVD 2020 LIFETIME FAMILY TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/17/2024 |
| TOUCHSTONE COMMUNITIES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/09/2025 |
| TOUCHSTONE LAREDO PROPERTIES LTD | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/17/2024 |
| TRIDENT HEALTH SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/17/2024 |
| BENAVIDES, LUIS | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/17/2024 |
| FELLBAUM, ERNEST | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/17/2024 |
| MAURICIO, LUIS | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/17/2024 |
| SEHLKE, BRYON | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/17/2024 |
| STUDER, STANLEY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/17/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 33 rows in the source record cover these 29 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
16 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.
About 78% 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 $413K 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 2023. 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
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). 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
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.
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 675030. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-29, 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.