Avir at Walnut Springs
1637 N King St, Seguin, TX 78155 · For profit - Corporation · 113 certified beds · (830) 379-3784 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Aug 2024
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (58%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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 5 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 | 12.7% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.2% | 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 | 0.9% | 2.4% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 2.8% | 0.0% | 0.1% | worse 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 | 13.0% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.7% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.4% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.8% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 7.2% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 19.1% | 9.6% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.9% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 83.1% | 88.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 13.5% | 25.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.1% | 12.3% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.58 | 2.17 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.96 | 2.06 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
63.3% 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 30 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.37 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 64% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 63.3%CMS range 49.1–74.2 | 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 | 11.1%CMS range 7.1–16.8 | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 7.1%CMS range 3.9–13.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.05 | 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 113 beds and averages 67.9 residents a day — about 60% occupied, or roughly 45 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 3.66 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.17 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.20 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 2.94 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.95 on weekdays — 26% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.16 to 0.19 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 58% is well above 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2025-11-18 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — patternProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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 a resident who was incontinent of bladder and bowel received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible for 2 (Resident #4 and #52) of 4 residents reviewed for incontinence care. The facility failed to ensure while providing incontinent care: 1. CNAB did not clean the right buttock area for Resident #4. 2. CNAC did not separating the labia and thoroughly clean the vaginal area for Resident #52. This failure could place residents who required incontinence care at risk for cross contamination and the development of urinary tract infections. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #4's face sheet, dated 09/26/2025, revealed the resident was [AGE] years old male, originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], and re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of severe protein-calorie malnutrition (a nutrition status in which reduced…
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 · E2025-11-18 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biological were stored in locked compartments for 1 (stage 2 station medication room) of 1 medication room, 1 (stage 1 station medication aide cart) of 3 medication carts, and 1 resident (Resident #64) of 25 residents reviewed for storage, in that: The facility failed to ensure: 1. There was one bottle of Fish Oil 1200 mg found in stage 2 station medication room on 09/24/2025, and it expired 07/2025. 2. Resident #64's acetaminophen suppository was found in the refrigerator inside stage 2 station medication room on 09/24/2025, and it expired 08/2025. 3. There was one bottle of calcium citrate with vitamin D3 found in stage 1 station medication aide cart on 09/24/2025, and it expired 07/2025. This failure could place residents at risk of misappropriation of medications and not having the intended therapeutic effects.The findings were: 1. Observation on 09/24/2025 at 2:39 p.m., of the stage 2 station medication room…
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 · D2025-11-18 · 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide assessments that accurately reflect the resident's status for two of seventeen (Residents #3 and #74) residents reviewed for MDS assessment accuracy. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Resident #3's quarterly MDS assessment did not accurately reflect he had a Bi-Pap (Bi-level positive airway pressure) for helping his breathe. 2. Resident #74's discharge MDS assessment did not accurately reflect death in the facility. This deficient could place residents with MDS assessments at risk of missed or inappropriate care.The findings included: 1.Record review of Resident #3's face sheet, dated [DATE] reflected he was a [AGE] year-old male initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of hypothyroidism (the thyroid gland does not make enough thyroid hormone), type 2 diabetes mellitus (a chronic metabolic disorder characterized by high blood sugar (glucose) levels), heart failure (the heart muscle…
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 · D2025-11-18 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care, including tracheostomy care, was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for one (Resident #70) of three residents who was reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #70's suction Yankauer (suctioning tool used in medical procedures. It is typically a firm plastic suction tip with a large opening to allow effective suction in the mouth) which was attached to a suction machine was not covered in a plastic bag when the facility did not use it. This deficient practice could place residents who receive respiratory therapy and could contribute to respiratory distress, infections, pneumonia and an overall decline in their physical condition.The findings were: Record review of Resident #70's face sheet, dated 09/26/2025, revealed the resident was 78-years-old male who was admitted to 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 · D2025-11-18 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 (stage 2 station medication room) of 2 medication rooms. The facility failed to ensure all prepared items in the refrigerator located inside the stage 2 station medication room was labeled and dated with the use by date. These failures could place residents at risk for food borne illness.The findings included: Observation of the facility's stage 2 station medication room on 09/24/2025 at 2:39 p.m., revealed there was two refrigerators in the medication room. One was for the medications, and the other was for the residents' food. There was 4 small containers with food found in the stage 2 station medication room, and the food containers did not have any labels or dates. During an interview on 09/24/2025 at 2:39 p.m., ADONE stated there was 4 small containers with food found in the stage 2 station medication room, and the food containers did not have any labels or dates. ADONE said the food looked…
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 · D2025-11-18 · tag F0813 — isolatedHave a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors.
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 have a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors to ensure safe and sanitary storage, handling, and consumption, for 1 (Resident #21) of 25 residents reviewed, in that: Resident #21's personal refrigerator had unlabeled and undated food. The failure could place the resident at risk for food borne illness.The findings were: Record review of Resident #21's face sheet, dated 09/26/2025, revealed the resident was 85-years-old male and admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia (loss of cognitive functioning-thinking, remembering, and reasoning-to such an extent that it interferes with a person's daily life and activities), muscle wasting and atrophy (loss of skeletal muscle mass), type 2 diabetes mellitus (a condition where the body has trouble regulating blood sugar levels, leading to persistently high blood glucose levels), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), 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 · Dcited before2025-05-02 · 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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that each resident received adequate assistance devices to prevent accidents for 2 of 2 Residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) who were observed for mechanical lift transfers. 1. CNA A and CNA B failed to lock and widen the base of the mechanical lift while transferring Resident #1 from the wheelchair to the bed. 2. CNA C and CNA D failed to position the mechanical lift in a manner that would allow staff to widen the base of the mechanical lift while transferring Resident #2 from the Geri-chair to the bed. These deficient practices could affect residents who used a mechanical lift for transfers and contribute to avoidable falls. The findings were: 1. Review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 5/2/25, revealed she was admitted into the facility on 7/11/25 with diagnoses including unspecified Dementia, contracture left knee and left ankle. Review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 2/22/25, revealed her BIMS score was 10…
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 · D2024-08-28 · 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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents received services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs for 1 of 22 residents (Resident #21) who were observed for call light placement. The facility failed to ensure the call light was within reach for Resident #21. This deficient practice could affect any resident and keep them from calling for help as needed. The findings were: Record review of Resident #21's face sheet, dated 08/27/2024, revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a latest return date of 12/29/2021 with diagnoses which included: Hemiplegia and hemiparesis following unspecified cerebrovascular disease affecting right dominant side, vascular dementia severe, without behavioral disturbance, pain disorder with related psychological factors, anxiety disorder, schizoaffective disorder, depressive type, and hypertension. Record review of Resident #21's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/26/2024, revealed the resident'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 · D2024-08-28 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were not verbally and physically abused for 1 of 8 Residents (Resident #5) whose records were reviewed for abuse. CNA B roughly rolled Resident #5 forward in bed applied a mechanical lift sling and roughly rolled Resident #5 back towards her in bed preparing Resident #5 for a mechanical lift transfer. CNA B told Resident #5 to shut up when Resident #5 moaned and groaned. CNA B told Resident #5 Don't grab me. when Resident #5's right hand slightly touched her right shoulder due to the force used when rolling Resident #5 back towards her. CNA B then commented, Same shit every day; every day. This noncompliance was identified as past non-complinace. The non-complinace began on 08/15/2024 and ended on 08/18/2024. The facility corrected the non-complinace before the survey began. This deficient practice could affect any resident and result in emotional and physical abuse. The findings were: Review of Resident #5's face sheet,…
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 · D2024-08-28 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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 revealed based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, the facility failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 of 6 Residents (Resident #2) whose records were reviewed for wounds. Nursing staff failed to ensure treatment orders were entered into Resident #2's EHR after she was assessed with an anal fissure (a small tear in the thin, moist tissue that lines the anus according to Mayo Clinic) to ensure Resident #2 received treatment per physician's orders. This deficient practice could affect residents with new physician orders and could contribute to a decline in physical condition. The findings were: Review of Resident #2's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 7/17/24, revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Bipolar Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder and Chronic Kidney Disease, Stage III. Further review…
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 before2024-08-28 · 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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident received assistance devices to prevent accidents for 2 of 8 Residents (Resident #5 and Resident #36) who were observed for transfers. 1. CNA B transferred Resident #5 from the bed to the wheelchair using a mechanical lift which by the resident's care plan and policy required two people for operation and transfer. 2. CNA C transferred Resident #36 from the wheelchair to the bed without the use of a gait as needed due to the resident having unsteady gait. These deficient practices could affect residents who require assistive devices during transfers and could contribute to avoidable falls. The findings were: 1. Review of Resident #5's face sheet, dated 8/27/24, revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Malignant neoplasm of upper-inner quadrant of unspecified female breast; unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition; Contracture, unspecified hand, Contracture, unspecified knee 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.
- No harm found · Bcited before2025-11-18 · tag F0912 — patternProvide rooms that are at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and 100 square feet for single resident rooms.
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, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that 21 out of 21 resident rooms (401-405, 407, 410-414 and 501-510) provided a minimum of 80 square feet of floor space per resident. Twenty-one of the two-bed resident rooms measured less than the required 80 square feet per resident. This deficient practice could affect residents living in these rooms by restricting the amount of resident care equipment and resident's personal effects that could be accommodated in these rooms. The findings were: Per the facility Bed Classification Form 3740 dated 09/23/2025 as completed by facility Administrator revealed, Resident Rooms 401 through 405, 407, 410 through 414, and 501 through 510 were listed as two resident bedrooms. Observation on 09/24/2025 beginning at 1:15 p.m. of the measurements of resident bedrooms using a laser measuring tool by the Life Safety Code surveyor, revealed the following measurements: room [ROOM NUMBER]: 11.75 feet x 12.6 feet = 148.5 square feet…
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 · Bcited before2024-08-28 · tag F0912 — patternProvide rooms that are at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and 100 square feet for single resident rooms.
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, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that 21 out of 21 resident rooms (401-405, 407, 410-414 and 501-510) provided a minimum of 80 square feet of floor space per resident. Twenty-one of the two-bed resident rooms measured less than the required 80 square feet per resident. This deficient practice could affect residents living in these rooms by restricting the amount of resident care equipment and resident's personal effects that could be accommodated in these rooms. The findings were: Review of the facility Bed Classification Form 3740 dated 08/26/2024 as completed by the facility Administrator revealed, Resident Rooms 401 through 405, 407, 410 through 414, and 501 through 510 were listed as two resident bedrooms. Observation on 08/24/2024 beginning at 2:45 p.m. of the measurements of resident bedrooms using a laser measuring tool by the Life Safety Code surveyor, revealed the following measurements: room [ROOM NUMBER]: 11.75 feet x 12.6 feet = 148.5 square feet…
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 · Bcited before2023-06-16 · tag F0912 — patternProvide rooms that are at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and 100 square feet for single resident rooms.
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 have resident rooms that measured at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple resident bedrooms for 19 of 26 resident rooms (Rooms 401-405, 407, 410-414, and 501-508) reviewed for square footage. Resident rooms 401-405, 407, 410-414, and 501-508 measured less than the required 80 square feet per resident. This failure could affect residents negatively by restricting the amount of room the residents had for needed resident care equipment, personal furnishings, and personal belongings, and could result in feelings of frustration, confined space, and a decreased quality of life. The findings were: In an interview on 6/16/23 at 9:25 a.m. the Administrator stated she wanted to continue the room waiver for all rooms not meeting the square footage requirement. Record review of the Bed Classification form 3740 signed by the Administrator on 6/13/23 revealed rooms 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 407, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505,…
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 AVIR HEALTH GROUP — 116 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
The other 115 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.3★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 115; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FANNIN COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/01/2020 |
| SANDERSON, CLARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/29/2012 |
| 1637 N KING ST OPCO, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2025 |
| FREUND, NOCHUM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/01/2025 |
| KUO, YU JIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2025 |
| TRAVITSKY, AARON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/01/2025 |
| DAGAN, AMITAI | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/20/2025 |
| GOLDBERGER, ABRAHAM | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/20/2025 |
| GOLDBERGER, FAIGY | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/20/2025 |
| WELLTOWER NNN GROUP, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2025 |
| WELLTOWER OP, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2025 |
| ZUNIGA, JUDITH | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 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 675656. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-18, 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.