New MexicoLas Vegas

The NM Behavioral Health Institute at Las Vegas

3695 Hot Springs Boulevard, Las Vegas, NM 87701 · San Miguel County · 162 certified beds · avg 107 residents/day · certified since Sep 29, 1995

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$18,353
Fines, last 3 years
5.30
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5

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)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Aug 23, 2024 · F-0600

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 (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Oct 4, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (26)

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
Dec 12, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides were properly trained — aides working more than 4 months must be trained and competent, and newer aides must be enrolled in training.
Dec 12, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents.
Dec 12, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required.
Dec 12, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required.
Dec 12, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 12, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay).
Dec 12, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that.
Dec 12, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable.
Dec 12, 2025D · 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.
Dec 12, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Dec 12, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids.
Dec 12, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.
Dec 12, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Aug 23, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, 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.
Aug 23, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Aug 23, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving.
Aug 23, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Aug 23, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Aug 23, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.
Aug 23, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide or arrange specialized rehabilitation services — such as physical, occupational, or speech therapy — for residents who needed them.
Aug 23, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention.
Aug 23, 2024D · 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.
Jul 21, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jul 21, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Jul 21, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.
Jul 21, 2023B · Minimal risk, 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (9 → 13).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202340E
202491G ▲
2025130F

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 $18,353, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

DateTypeAmount / length
Aug 23, 2024Fine$18,353
Aug 23, 2024Payment Denial9 days from Sep 25, 2024

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

MeasureThis facilityNew Mexico avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)5.303.943.95top 8% in New Mexico; top 9% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.820.700.69top 29% in New Mexico; top 26% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.963.463.50top 8% in New Mexico; top 7% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.480.460.48top 44% in New Mexico; top 36% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)25.453.345.8top 1% in New Mexico; top 8% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)29.453.642.9top 11% in New Mexico; top 28% 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 4.08, RN 0.63, weekend 3.82. Staffing rating: 5/5.

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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

Government - State

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Jaramillo, CharlesIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2008
Jaramillo, CharlesIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2008
Martinez, DarleneIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2015
State of New MexicoOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/24/2009

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
La Vida Buena Healthcare1.4 miLas Vegas, NM★★☆☆☆1/5

Compare this facility with the 1 closest →

All facilities in Las Vegas →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 325104.