Stockdale Nursing Ctr

Pros

• The staff are kind and truly care for the patients.
• The staff take good care of former clients.
• The aides are great.
• The hard-working staff care for residents like family.
• The place is loved by visitors.

Cons

• The facility is described as horrible.
• Nurses are accused of sitting idle while residents are taken out for smoke breaks, with a family member having to intervene to clean up a resident.
• A resident was left in bed for hours, lying in feces and urine.
• Staff reportedly talked to other residents about why some residents won't take them to smoke.
• A resident outside on a hill was left alone, yelling for help.
• Staff were seated around a table in the common area talking to each other while most residents were outside.
• Staff allegedly joked about passing inspection, and charts were said to be fake.
• There is claimed to be no rehabilitation program.

Review

The facility described by these reviews presents a striking contrast between warmth and concern on one hand, and serious questions about care and oversight on the other. On the positive side, multiple voices emphasize a welcoming, considerate atmosphere where staff are seen as kind and genuinely invested in the well-being of residents. Comments such as "Nice helpful people," "Kind staff and they truly care for the patients," and "Great hard working staff that care about there residents like family" paint a picture of a home-like setting where the human connection between caregivers and residents is valued highly. Several reviewers talk about the staff taking good care of former clients and being there for social reasons - people visiting friends, nurses and aides who are attentive to individual needs, and a general sense that the facility is a place where residents are treated with respect and compassion. The repeated sentiment, "I love this place!!," reinforces that for some families and visitors, the environment can be a positive, supportive space, with staff who remind them of family in their dedication and demeanor.

In the more favorable accounts, the staff are not only described as kind but also as competent and dependable. The phrase "aides are great" stands out as a simple but powerful acknowledgment of the direct care providers who work closely with residents day to day. The idea that staff are "hard working" and "care about there residents like family" suggests a culture that values personal attention, individualized care, and the kind of daily consistency families look for when entrusting a loved one to a facility. For these reviewers, the care experience is characterized by small but meaningful acts of support, steady presence, and a general sense that the facility operates with a people-first approach. In short, these readers depict a facility that can feel like a comforting extension of home, where staff engagement translates into tangible benefits for residents and their families.

Yet the set of reviews is not without significant red flags that starkly complicate the overall impression. One reviewer delivers a detailed, scathing account of neglect and mismanagement that reads like an indictment of several aspects of the operation. "This place is horrible," they begin, and the narration unfolds with concrete allegations: nurses sitting idle while residents are taken out for smoke breaks, a sister left in bed for hours in feces and urine, and the brother-in-law repeatedly stepping in to assist with basic needs that should have been handled by staff. The image of a resident needing cleaning and care while staff gather around a table in a common area, conversing rather than attending to residents, is jarring and paints a scene of serious lapse in supervision and accountability. The reviewer emphasizes that most residents were outside with the brother-in-law, which implies a broader pattern of disengagement and inadequate staffing during certain shifts or moments.

Further intensifying the concern are remarks about communication and oversight. The reviewer notes conversations among staff about other residents' behavior related to smoking, suggesting a problematic dynamic where residents' personal preferences or needs are deprioritized in favor of group norms or staff routines. The incident of helping a resident who was stuck on a hill outside, "yelling for help," underscores a potential risk to safety and independence that should have been mitigated by staff presence. When this person is brought back inside, the staff are described as engrossed in conversation with each other, rather than ensuring a safe, supportive environment for those who need assistance. The critique crescendos with accusations of poor inspection results and even joking about passing inspection, along with a claim that charts were faked. The reviewer's insistence that there is "not one" rehabilitation program points to a perception of missing or ineffective rehabilitation services that were likely promised or expected by families.

The contrast between the two ends of the spectrum - care that feels personal and compassionate on one side, and care that appears neglected or mishandled on the other - creates a complex portrait of the facility. It is possible that the quality of care varies by shift, by staff, or by the day - situations not uncommon in some care environments where praise is drawn from some moments of connection and criticism arises from other, more troubling episodes. The negative account highlights critical areas to investigate: staff coverage and responsiveness, the safety and dignity of residents, the integrity of documentation and communication, and the presence and effectiveness of rehabilitation services. Taken together, these reviews suggest that while some visitors experience warmth and attentiveness, others encounter systemic shortcomings that require attention from administrators, staff leadership, and regulatory bodies.

Readers encountering these perspectives should approach the facility with a balanced, investigative mindset. The positive comments offer reassurance that a genuinely caring, family-like environment can exist in the same establishment, where aides are described as dedicated and residents are treated with dignity. Conversely, the troubling account raises serious concerns about neglect, safety, and accountability that cannot be ignored. If you are considering this facility for a loved one, it would be prudent to gather multiple sources of information: talk to current residents and their families, request a tour at different times of day, observe how staff interact with residents, and review recent inspection reports and any corrective action plans. It may also be helpful to ask about rehabilitation services, staffing ratios, and the facility's processes for addressing concerns or complaints, to form a well-rounded understanding of what life there might be like.

In the end, the collection of opinions presents a nuanced narrative: the care experience can be both heartening and alarming, depending on whom you ask and when you visit. The room for improvement is clearly identified in the negative review - most notably in staff responsiveness, safety, and rehabilitation offerings - while the positive testimony demonstrates that compassionate care from attentive staff is attainable within the same walls. This dichotomy serves as a reminder that elder care environments are living, changing places, where the quality of experience hinges on many moving parts, including personnel, oversight, and a sustained commitment to residents' dignity and well-being. As with any care decision, prospective families are encouraged to seek firsthand experiences, gather diverse viewpoints, and weigh both the warmth and the warnings before making a choice.

Stockdale, Texas is a quaint and peaceful community with various amenities that cater to the needs of senior residents. There are several places of worship nearby, providing spiritual support and a sense of community. The city park offers a relaxing outdoor space for leisurely walks or picnics. In terms of healthcare, there are multiple physicians and pharmacies within close proximity, ensuring easy access to medical services. Additionally, for dining options, there are a variety of restaurants and cafes to choose from, offering delicious meals without having to travel far. Overall, Stockdale provides a comfortable and convenient environment for seniors looking for a welcoming place to call home.

Places of Worship

• First Stockdale (0.3 miles)
• First Assembly of God (0.4 miles)
• Stockdale Church of Christ (1 miles)
• First Baptist Church (6.6 miles)
• Spare Change Ministries Int'l (6.8 miles)
• St Ann Parish Kosciuszko (8.8 miles)
• Southern Baptist Convention (9.4 miles)

Parks

• Stockdale City Park (0.5 miles)
• Floresville City Park (19 miles)
• Starcke Park (22.4 miles)
• Memorial Rose Garden (23.3 miles)

Transportation

• Bar S Taxidermy & Deer Processing (6.5 miles)

Restaurants

• Double D Roadhouse (10.9 miles)
• Melanie's Bar & Grill (11.7 miles)
• Nellie's Cafe (11.7 miles)
• Shady Grill (11.9 miles)
• Dq (11.9 miles)
• El Rodeo (11.9 miles)
• Subway (12 miles)

Cafes

• Lucky Tea Cup (11.9 miles)
• Hot Beans Coffee Stop (14.9 miles)
• Baldys Classic Diner (22.9 miles)

Physicians

• Daryl C Currier Md (12.9 miles)
• Ekmark Roderick D MD - Ekmark, Roderick D MD (13.4 miles)
• Alamo City Medical Group (13.6 miles)
• Atascosa Health Center (13.6 miles)
• Floresville Family Health Center (13.7 miles)
• Conviva Care Center Floresville (13.8 miles)
• Allied Institute of Medicine (13.8 miles)

Pharmacies

• Pharm House Drug - La Vernia (13.3 miles)
• Health Mart Pharmacy (13.3 miles)
• Lifechek Drug Store (13.4 miles)
• H-E-B Pharmacy (14 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (14 miles)
• Walmart Pharmacy (14.2 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (23.3 miles)

Hospitals

• Wilson Memorial Home Health Services (13.5 miles)
• Alaquinez, Jacklyn O.D. (14 miles)
• Connally Memorial Medical Center (14.1 miles)
• Guadalupe Regional Hospital (23.2 miles)
• Guadalupe Regional Medical Center (23.2 miles)