TexasMcAllen

Alfredo Gonzalez Texas State Veterans Home

301 E Yuma Ave, McAllen, TX 78503 · Hidalgo County · 160 certified beds · avg 155 residents/day · certified since Jul 14, 2005

Abuse citation flag (CMS)

Part of chain: TEXVET (9 facilities, chain avg rating 2.7★)

The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
3
Serious findings on record
$14,901
Fines, last 3 years
4.09
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Feb 27, 2026 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: Feb 8, 2026 (Past Non-Compliance)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Feb 27, 2026 · F-0607 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection.

Why it matters: Without working prevention policies, mistreatment is more likely to happen and less likely to be caught.

Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: Feb 8, 2026 (Past Non-Compliance)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, repeated · Jul 17, 2023 · F-0689

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.

Corrected: Feb 13, 2023 (Past Non-Compliance)

All citations in the current public record (30)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
May 20, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint
Apr 1, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
Feb 27, 2026▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Feb 27, 2026▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint
Feb 27, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint
Feb 27, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. · from a complaint
Feb 27, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
Jan 7, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups.
Jan 7, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines.
Jan 7, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure the resident's doctor reviewed their care and wrote, signed, and dated progress notes and orders at each required visit.
Jan 7, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Jan 7, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Jan 7, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
Aug 18, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint
May 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint
Feb 21, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint
Feb 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint
Feb 21, 2025B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint
Oct 30, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint
Oct 30, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have doctor's orders in place for a resident's immediate care at the time the resident was admitted. · from a complaint
Oct 30, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · from a complaint
Oct 4, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it.
Oct 4, 2024C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day.
Jul 17, 2023▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Jul 17, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.
Jul 17, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups.
Jul 17, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines.
Jul 17, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Jul 17, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Jul 17, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have policies on smoking.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 6).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202371K ▲
202450E
202550E
2026132J ▲

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

1 fine totaling $14,901.

DateTypeAmount / length
Feb 27, 2026Fine$14,901

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityTexas avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.093.463.95top 13% in Texas; top 36% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.430.440.69top 40% in Texas; bottom 27% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.483.043.50top 17% in Texas; top 43% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.170.340.48bottom 14% in Texas; bottom 8% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)28.555.345.8top 4% in Texas; top 12% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)27.854.642.9top 15% in Texas; top 25% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.58, RN 0.38, weekend 3.04. Staffing rating: 4/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Who owns this facility

Government - State

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Berkely, JohnIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2016
Elledge, MatthewIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2016
Sears Methodist Retirement System, INC.OrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/29/2010

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
McAllen Transitional Care Center0.7 miMcAllen, TX★★★★☆3/5
Windsor Las Palmas Nursing and Rehabilitation Cent0.9 miMcAllen, TX★★★★★5/5
Grand Terrace Rehabilitation and Healthcare1.3 miMcAllen, TX★★★★★5/5
Windsor Nursing and Rehabilitation Center of McAll1.4 miMcAllen, TX★★★☆☆4/5
McAllen Nursing Center2.1 miMcAllen, TX★★☆☆☆2/5
Village Healthcare and Rehabilitation3.5 miMcAllen, TX★★★☆☆2/5abuse
San Juan Nursing Home, INC.4.2 miSan Juan, TX★★★★☆4/5
Briarcliff Nursing and Rehabilitation Center4.6 miMcAllen, TX★☆☆☆☆2/5abuse
Colonial Manor Advanced Rehab & Healthcare4.8 miPharr, TX★☆☆☆☆2/5
Edinburg Nursing and Rehabilitation Center5.8 miEdinburg, TX★★☆☆☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in McAllen →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 676063.