The Heights of Atascosa
1855 W Goodwin, Pleasanton, TX 78064 · For profit - Corporation · 100 certified beds · (830) 281-8202 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)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- 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
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
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) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 3 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 | 7.7% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.9% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 1.4% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.1% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.0% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.4% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 9.6% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.1% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.8% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 29.5% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.6% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.31 | 2.17 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.75 | 2.06 | 1.80 | typical |
* 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.
47.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 86 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 45.7% 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 70 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 60% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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 | 47.3%CMS range 39.6–57.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.0%CMS range 6.6–15.3 | 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 | 45.7% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 discharge | 27.1% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 40.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 stay | 1.0% | 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 | 1.0% | 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 | 8.0%CMS range 5.0–11.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.39 | 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 100 beds and averages 85.2 residents a day — about 85% occupied, or roughly 15 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.42 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.28 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.22 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 2.88 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.63 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.34 to 0.15 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 41% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
16 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 6 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · E2025-11-24 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that all allegations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation and mistreatment were reported immediately, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation was made to the State Survey Agency for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for reporting of allegation of abuse, in that: The facility failed to report to the State Survey Agency (Health and Human Services Commission) an allegation of sexual abuse made by Resident #1. This failure could place residents at risk for harm to include neglect and a diminished quality of life. The findings included: Record review of Resident #1's admission record, dated 10/15/25, reflected a [AGE] year-old female, admitted [DATE] with diagnoses to include bipolar disorder (mental health condition that causes extreme mood swings) and schizoaffective disorder (mental health condition that can include psychotic symptoms such as hallucinations or delusions). Record review of Resident #1's care plan, undated, reflected…
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 · D2025-05-16 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably 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, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents had the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents for 2 of 8 residents (Resident # 25, Resident #75) reviewed for call lights. 1. Resident #25's call light was not in reach. 2. Resident #75's call light was not in reach. This failure could place residents at risk of achieving independent functioning, dignity, and wellbeing. The findings included: Record review of Resident #25's face sheet dated 5/16/2025 revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] initially with diagnoses that included: hemiplegia following a stroke, atrophy (muscle wasting away), vascular dementia. Record review of Resident #25's Annual MDS dated [DATE] revealed he had a BIMS score of 8, indicative of moderate cognitive deficit. Record review of Resident #25'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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-16 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 the resident has a right to personal privacy for 1 (Resident #47) of 18 residents reviewed the privacy. Resident #47 did not have privacy in the resident's room because the resident's room was seen from outside due to the broken blinds of window. This failure could place residents at risk of violation of right to personal privacy. The findings were: Record review of Resident #47's face sheet, dated 05/16/2025, revealed the resident was [AGE] years old female, originally admitted on [DATE], and re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of cerebral infarction (area of brain tissue that dies due to cessation of blood flow), type 2 diabetes mellitus (the body has trouble controlling blood sugars and using it for energy), muscle weakness, hypertension (high blood pressures), and chronic kidney disease (kidneys not waste and excess fluid from the body). Record review of Resident #47's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed…
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 · D2025-05-16 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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 provide a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public for 1 (Resident #47) out of 18 residents reviewed for environmental concerns. Resident #47's window blind was broken, and it could not cover the window fully. This failure could place residents at risk of a diminished quality of life due to exposure to an environment that is unpleasant, unsanitary, and unsafe. The findings were: Record review of Resident #47's face sheet, dated 05/16/2025, revealed the resident was [AGE] years old female, originally admitted on [DATE], and re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of cerebral infarction (area of brain tissue that dies due to cessation of blood flow), type 2 diabetes mellitus (the body has trouble controlling blood sugars and using it for energy), muscle weakness, hypertension (high blood pressures), and chronic kidney disease (kidneys not waste and excess fluid from the…
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 · D2025-05-16 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to implement a person-centered care plan for 2 of 8 (Resident #25, Resident #75) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to follow care planned interventions for Resident#25 and Resident #75 on 5/13/2025 when their call lights were not placed in reach. This failure could place the resident at risk of not receiving person-centered care that is needed for communicating with staff to ensure the residents' needs are met. Findings included: Record review of Resident #25's face sheet dated 5/16/2025 revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] initially with diagnoses that included: hemiplegia following a stroke, atrophy (muscle wasting away), vascular dementia. Record review of Resident #25's Annual MDS dated [DATE] revealed he had a BIMS score of 8, indicative of moderate cognitive deficit. Record review of Resident #25's Care Plan dated 4/23/2025 revealed pain due to a history of fractures, falls related to balance…
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 · Dcited before2025-05-16 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food safety for 1 of 1 kitchen observed. 1. The deep fryer was not clean from previous day usage. 2. The deep fryer was still uncleaned after 2 meals were served for the day. This failure could place residents who received meals and or snacks from the kitchen at risk for food borne illness. The findings included: Observation on 05/13/25 at 09:30 AM the kitchen had a deep fryer that sat next to the stove, that had 2 frying baskets with crumbs and food in the weaves of the baskets. There was a pan underneath the baskets that covered the opening of the fryer, it also had crumbs and grease on the pan. There was grease and crumbs on the outside of the deep fryer as well. Interview on 5/13/2025 at 9:32 AM the DM said the fryer was used yesterday evening. Observation on 5/13/2025 at 11:35 AM revealed the deep fryer still had the baskets and the pan were still not cleaned. Observation and interview on 5/13/2025 at 2:40 PM…
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 · D2025-05-16 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain medical records that were complete and accurately documented in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices for 1 (Resident #46) out of 18 residents reviewed for medical records. Facility nurses did not document their initials when they changed Resident #46's oxygen tubing and nasal cannular on the resident's medication administration record. This failure placed residents at risk for missed treatment regarding changing oxygen tubing and nasal cannular as ordered which could result in decline in healing and well-being. Findings included: Record review of Resident #46's face sheet, dated 05/16/2025, revealed the resident was [AGE] years old male and admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of osteomyelitis of vertebra (spinal infection), discitis (infection at disc space), heart failure (heart not pumping enough blood to the body), hypertension (high blood pressure), muscle weakness, urinary tract…
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 · Dcited before2024-03-22 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 ensure residents have a right to personal privacy for 1 of 6 resident (Resident #42) reviewed for privacy, in that: LVN A did not completely close Resident #42's privacy curtain while providing colostomy (an opening for the colon through the abdomen) care for the resident. This deficient practice could place residents at-risk of loss of dignity due to lack of privacy. The findings include: Record review of Resident #42's face sheet, dated 03/21/2024, revealed an admission date of 05/02/2019 and, a readmission date of 07/10/2021, with diagnoses which included: Hemiplegia (Paralysis of one side of the body), Dysphasia (language disorder), Congestive heart failure (impairment of the heart's blood pumping function), Alzheimer's disease (brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills), Hyperlipidemia(Elevated level of any or all lipids(fat) in the blood), Mood disorder (any of a group of conditions of mental and behavioral disorder causing a disturbance in the person's mood), Colostomy (an opening…
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 · Dcited before2024-03-22 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 the assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 18 residents (Resident #64) whose assessments were reviewed, in that: Resident #64's admission MDS assessment incorrectly documented the resident as not receiving hospice services. This failure could place residents at-risk for inadequate care due to inaccurate assessments. The findings were: 1. Record review of Resident #64's physician orders, dated 03/21/2024, revealed an admission date of 02/27/2024, with diagnoses that included: Type 2 diabetes mellitus(high level of sugar in the blood), Depression (Mental state of low mood and aversion to activity), Alzheimer's disease (brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills), Dementia (decline in cognitive abilities), Hyperlipidemia (Elevated level of any or all lipids(fat) in the blood). Further review of the physician orders revealed an order for Admit to [ .[ Hospice. No weights, no labs, Hospice nurse to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-22 · 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
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 infection for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #18) reviewed for infection control, in that: CNA D failed to wash or sanitize her hands or change her gloves after touching the privacy curtain and the bed remote before starting incontinent care. This deficient practice could place residents at-risk for infection due to improper care practices. The findings included: Record review of Resident #18's face sheet, dated 03/21/2024, revealed an admission date of 02/11/2022 and, a readmission date of 03/22/2022 with diagnoses which included: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (high level of sugar in the blood), Atrial fibrillation (abnormal heart rhythm), Schizophrenia (mental disorder characterized by reoccurring episodes of psychosis), Metabolic encephalopathy (Brain function is disturbed due to different diseases or…
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.
Show the remaining 6 citations
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-02-10 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 MDS assessments accurately reflected the residents' medications ordered for 3 of 8 residents (Resident #35, #37, #62) whose records were reviewed for accuracy, in that Resident #35's Quarterly MDS misidentified a medication as an anticoagulant instead of an anti-clotting agent; Resident #37's Annual MDS misidentified a medication as an anticoagulant instead of an anti-clotting agent; Resident #62's Quarterly MDS misidentified a medication as an anticoagulant instead of an anti-clotting agent; This deficient practice could affect residents who required an MDS assessment and could result in an inaccurate reflection of their care needs. The findings were: Record review of Resident #35's admission Record dated 02/09/23 revealed an [AGE] year-old female admitted to facility on 08/10/22. Resident #35's diagnoses included Type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia (a chronic disease characterized by high levels of sugar in the blood), 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-02-10 · 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, interview and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen and 2 of 3 standard size refrigerators reviewed for sanitation and storage, in that: 1. The facility failed to properly store food in the walk-in dry food storage area. 2. The facility failed to properly store food in the large commercial style refrigerator. 3. The facility failed to properly store drinks/food in 1 of 2 standard size refrigerators observed on the hallways accessible to staff and Residents. These deficient practices could place residents who eat food from the kitchen at-risk of foodborne illness. Findings include: Observation on 02/07/2023 at 9:50 a.m. of the dry food storage area, with the [NAME] at 9:50 a.m. revealed a 5- pound container of peanut butter partially used with no open date. Observation on 02/09/2023 at 10:55 a.m. of the commercial style refrigerator, with the Dietary Manager revealed a plastic storage bag sealed containing another opened plastic…
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 · D2023-02-10 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor 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 have the right to formulate an advance directive for 1 of 18 resident (Resident #46) reviewed for advanced directive in that: The facility failed to have the physician's license number recorded on the Out of Hospital Do Not Resuscitate (OOHDNR) order, which made the advanced directive invalid. This failure could affect any resident in the facility who had an OOHDNR in their chart and place them at risk of having cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed against their wishes. Findings: Record review of Resident #46's face sheet dated [DATE] revealed an admission on [DATE] with diagnosis which include: Alzheimer's disease; Unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, mood disturbance and anxiety; and muscle weakness. Record review of Resident #46's Quarterly MDS review assessment revealed a BIMS of 15, which revealed the resident is cognitively intact. Record review of Resident #46's Care Plan, 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-02-10 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 have a right to personal privacy for 1 of 6 resident (Resident #1) reviewed for privacy, in that: LVN E did not completely close Resident #1's privacy curtain and window curtain while providing wound care for the resident. This deficient practice could place residents at-risk of loss of dignity due to lack of privacy. The findings include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 02/09/2023, revealed an admission date of 07/06/2020, and a readmission date of 01/23/2023, with diagnoses which included: Congestive heart failure(condition in which the heart doesn't pump blood as efficiently as it should), Type 2 diabetes mellitus (blood glucose, also called blood sugar, is too high.), Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease(a chronic inflammatory lung disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs), Cirrhosis of liver(late stage of scarring (fibrosis) of the liver caused by many forms of liver diseases 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 · D2023-02-10 · tag F0801 — isolatedEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
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 employ sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, taking into consideration resident assessments, individual plans of care and the number, acuity and diagnosis of the facility's resident population in accordance with the facility assessment requirement, for 1 of 1 kitchen staff (Dietary Manager) reviewed for qualifications, in that: The Dietary Manager did not have the appropriate license, certification, or qualifications to function as the food service supervisor. This failure could place all residents who consume food prepared from the kitchen at increased risk of food borne illness and not receiving adequate nutrition. Findings include: During an interview on 02/09/2023 at 11:15 a.m., the DM revealed she does not have the certification required for her current position. She explained she was enrolled in a certification program currently but has not yet finished. The DM said she would finish at the earliest in December…
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 · Dcited before2023-02-10 · 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 maintain an Infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infection for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #52) reviewed for infection control, in that: CNA F did not wash or sanitize her hands or change her gloves during incontinent care for Resident #52 These deficient practices could place residents at-risk for infection due to improper care practices. The findings include: Record review of Resident #52's face sheet, dated 02/09/2023, revealed an admission date of 11/09/2022, with diagnoses which included: Hypertension (High blood pressure) , Pain, Type 2 diabetes mellitus(blood glucose, also called blood sugar, is too high), Hyperlipidemia( too much lipids (fat) in the blood), Intellectual disability(generalized neuro developmental disorder characterized by significantly impaired intellectual 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.
“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.
- 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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
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 | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.0 | ≈ chain avg |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BEXAR COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 02/28/2015 |
| LUMENT REAL ESTATE CAPITAL LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | — | since 05/05/2014 |
| HURLEY, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/26/2014 |
| TOUCHSTONE STRATEGIES - PLEASANTON LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2016 |
| CAMPBELL, LESLIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2020 |
| CASTILLO, LYNNEA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| CLAYTON, JONATHON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2023 |
| DUENES, MARIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/17/2020 |
| MORRIS, NICOLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2025 |
| SEHLKE, BRYON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/16/2016 |
| ZERTUCHE, BENJAMIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2014 |
| ZUROVEC, DARRELL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2017 |
| AEGIS THERAPIES, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| ALAMO ADVISORS LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| CARVAJAL PHARMACY LTC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2017 |
| NUTRITIOUS LIFESTYLES, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| PLANTE & MORAN PLLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| TOUCHSTONE COMMUNITIES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| TOUCHSTONE REALTY - ATASCOSA LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| TRIDENT HEALTH SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| FELLBAUM, ERNEST | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/28/2015 |
| STUDER, STANLEY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/28/2015 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 31 rows in the source record cover these 22 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
11 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.
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 676181. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-16, 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.