RIVERSIDE OAKS
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Riverside Oaks has a Trust Grade of B+, which indicates it is above average and recommended for families seeking care. It ranks #120 out of 1168 nursing homes in Texas, placing it in the top half, and is ranked #1 out of 4 facilities in Victoria County, meaning it is the best local option. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 3 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025. However, staffing is a weakness with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 33%, which is still below the Texas average of 50%. Notably, there have been concerns regarding infection control, such as staff not performing proper hand hygiene during catheter care, which could risk infections for residents needing such care. On a positive note, Riverside Oaks has not incurred any fines, indicating compliance with regulations, and boasts more RN coverage than 76% of Texas facilities, enhancing overall care quality.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Texas
- #120/1168
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 33% turnover. Near Texas's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Texas facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 27 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Texas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (33%)
15 points below Texas average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
13pts below Texas avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control progr...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were secured properly fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0807
(Tag F0807)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide drinks, including water and other liquids con...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 4 of 4 plates with 2 of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
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 of 1 kitch...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program for 2 o...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and record review, the facility failed to provide the required 80 square foot per resident in 3 of 54 resident rooms (Rooms A2, A3, A4) reviewed for bedroom measurements, in that:...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**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 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2022
14 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #20) whose assessments were r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that includes the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans that ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**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 enters the facility with an...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including the accurate administ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
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 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public for 1 of 1 designated sm...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0570
(Tag F0570)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to purchase a surety bond, or otherwise provide assurance satisfactory to the Secretary, to assure the security of residents deposited with ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment for daily living for 4 of 8 resident bedrooms (Resident #5, #13, #...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
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 of 1 kitche...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment in safe operating condition for 1 of 1 kitchen, in that:
The ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
MDS Data Transmission
(Tag F0640)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to transmit a resident assessment within 14 days after a facility completes a resident's assessment, a facility must electronically transmit...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and record review, the facility failed to provide the required 80 square foot per resident in 3 of 54 resident rooms (Rooms A2, A3, A4) reviewed for bedroom measurements, in that:...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Grade B+ (80/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Texas.
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Texas facilities.
- • 33% turnover. Below Texas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Riverside Oaks's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns RIVERSIDE OAKS an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Texas, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Riverside Oaks Staffed?
CMS rates RIVERSIDE OAKS's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 33%, compared to the Texas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Riverside Oaks?
State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at RIVERSIDE OAKS during 2022 to 2025. These included: 19 with potential for harm and 3 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Riverside Oaks?
RIVERSIDE OAKS is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility is operated by CANTEX CONTINUING CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 108 certified beds and approximately 88 residents (about 81% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in VICTORIA, Texas.
How Does Riverside Oaks Compare to Other Texas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Texas, RIVERSIDE OAKS's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (33%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Riverside Oaks?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.
Is Riverside Oaks Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, RIVERSIDE OAKS has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Texas. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Riverside Oaks Stick Around?
RIVERSIDE OAKS has a staff turnover rate of 33%, which is about average for Texas nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Riverside Oaks Ever Fined?
RIVERSIDE OAKS has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Riverside Oaks on Any Federal Watch List?
RIVERSIDE OAKS is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.