Belle Grande Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
172 Versailles Blvd, Alexandria, LA 71303 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 139 certified beds · (318) 443-5638 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $16,149 in federal fines (most recent 2025-04-09)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- about 21% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 improved from 1 to 3 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 | 16.1% | 17.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.4% | 5.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.0% | 1.2% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.7% | 2.1% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.6% | 2.3% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.1% | 3.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.4% | 17.9% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 43.7% | 23.2% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.9% | 94.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.9% | 5.6% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 10.7% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 28.4% | 22.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 3.1% | 1.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.6% | 28.0% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.9% | 14.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.55 | 2.56 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.67 | 2.74 | 1.80 | typical |
‡ 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.
Met the expected recovery: 36.4% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 33 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.43 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 73% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.7%CMS range 6.3–14.2 | 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 | 36.4% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 33.3% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 36.4% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 80.8% | 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 | 2.1% | 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 | 8.5% | 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 | 6.1%CMS range 3.1–13.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.22 | 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 139 beds and averages 96.1 residents a day — about 69% occupied, or roughly 43 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 4.61 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.46 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.68 is at or above 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 3.84 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.92 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.53 to 0.30 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 45% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-04-09 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident remained free from falls, by failing to ensure proper practices were followed while using a lift during a transfer for 1 (#1) of 2 (#1 and #2) sampled residents reviewed for incidents and accidents. This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy for Resident #1 on 03/27/2025 at 1:57 p.m., when Resident #1 fell from a mechanical lift onto the floor while being transferred by S3 CNA and S4 CNA. Resident #1 sustained a complete displacement fracture of the proximal left femur, and a subarachnoid hemorrhage as a result of the fall. The facility determined that S3 CNA and S4 CNA failed to use the appropriate sling size, and failed to place the sling loops appropriately on the lift to transfer Resident #1. The facility implemented corrective actions prior to the State Agency's investigation therefore, it was determined to be a Past Noncompliance citation. Findings: Review of the facility's 12/2019 policy titled…
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 · E2025-09-24 · tag F0576 — patternEnsure residents have reasonable access to and privacy in their use of communication methods.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident's right to receive mail by not delivering mail to residents on Saturdays. This has the potential to affect all 96 residents residing in the facility. Findings:Review of an undated facility policy on 09/23/2025 at 4:23 p.m. titled, Resident Rights revealed the following in part .Resident Rights: The resident has a right to a dignified existences, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility. A facility must protect and promote the rights of each resident including: (i) Mail: The resident has the right to privacy in written communications, including the right to 1. Send and promptly received mail.On 09/22/2025 at 1:30 p.m., the Resident Council Meeting was conducted and revealed that the residents did not receive mail on Saturdays. All residents in attendance agreed they were told they should wait until Monday to receive the mail delivered on a Saturday. The Resident Council agreed they would like their mail delivered on Saturdays and not have…
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 · Ecited before2025-09-24 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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
Based on observations, interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure each resident's environment remained free of accident hazards. The facility failed to ensure hot water temperatures did not exceed 120 degrees for 15 (Bathroom A, Bathroom B, Bathroom C, Bathroom D, Bathroom E, Bathroom F, Bathroom G, Bathroom H, Bathroom I, Bathroom J, Bathroom K, Bathroom L, Bathroom M, Bathroom N, and Shower Room Z) resident bathroom/shower rooms. Findings: Review of the facility's undated policy titled General Policies read in part.Maintenance Services: 1. Maintaining the building in compliance with current federal, state and local laws, regulations and guidelines. Review of the facility's water temperature log by S3 Maintenance Supervisor revealed no water temperature greater than 120 degrees for the 06/2025, 07/2025, 08/2025 and 09/2025 water temperature logs. Observation on 09/22/2025 at 10:25 a.m. revealed Bathroom I's hot water temperature in the bathroom sink felt hot to touch. Observation on 09/22/2025 at 10:29 a.m., S10 Maintenance Supervisor checked Bathroom I's sink hot…
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 · E2025-09-24 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — patternProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who required dialysis received services consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 (#13) of 1 (#13) resident reviewed for dialysis by failing to communicate and collaborate with the dialysis facility. The facility reported 1 resident currently received dialysis.Findings: Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed an admit date of 07/01/2025 with diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, Dependent on Renal Dialysis, Hypertensive Heart and Chronic Kidney Disease with Heart Failure and with Stage 5 Chronic Kidney Disease, or End Stage Renal Disease. Review of Resident #13's physician's orders revealed an order for resident to attend dialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Review of Resident #13's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15, which indicated the resident had intact cognition. Review of Resident #13's medical chart revealed the most recent…
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 · Ecited before2025-09-24 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 and interview the Facility failed to maintain a clean, sanitary environment and ensure food was served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the 96 Residents who received food prepared by the kitchen.Findings: Review of a policy titled Food storage and Labeling, with a revision date of 05/2023 read in part ,Policy: The facility will store and label all foods to ensure safety and quality.Procedures:1. All temperature controlled foods and ready-to-eat foods that are prepared in the facility shall be labeled with the food name and date.7. Food will be stored in containers that are sealable, leak proof, durable and undamaged. Observation on 09/22/2025 at 8:40 a.m. of the walk in freezer/cooler revealed:1. 1 bag of lettuce, undated.2. 1 box of garlic bread open to air. 3. 2 plastic pitchers of lemonade open and undated.4. 1 plastic pitcher of Gatorade open and undated.Interview at the time of observation with S3 Dietary Manager revealed the staff who opens a food item should label 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 before2025-09-24 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 ensure that residents who were unable to carry out ADLs (Activities of Daily Living) received the necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene. The facility failed to provide nail care and oral care for 1 (Resident #54) of 1 residents reviewed for ADLs. Total sample size was 29.Findings: Review of the undated facility policy titled: Nail Management revealed in part: Policy: Nail management is the regular care of the toenails and fingernails to promote cleanliness and skin integrity of tissues, to prevent infection, and injury from scratching by fingernails or pressure of shoes on toenails. It includes cleansing, trimming, smoothing, and cuticle care and is usually done during the bath. Essential points: When performed at bath time, the nail care can be done following the procedure or as a separate procedure when needed at the convenience of the resident. Review of Resident #54's clinical record revealed an admit date of 05/02/2023 with diagnoses that included in part: Dysphagia following…
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 · D2025-09-24 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure nursing staff were competent to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of 1 (Resident #13) of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis. The facility failed to ensure nursing staff were competent in assessing Resident #13's dialysis access site, as ordered. The facility only had one resident receiving dialysis.Findings:Review of an undated facility policy titled Fistula Maintenance: Post Dialysis Care on 09/23/2025 at 11:23 a.m. revealed in part.Policy: to provide appropriate assessment, care and treatment of the vascular access post dialysis. Procedure: A. General Care for Fistulas: 1. Check for a pulse (bruit or thrill) at lease every day. Put your finger over the access site to feel the pulse. If you do not feel or hear a thrill, call the dialysis unit immediately because it may be clotted. Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed an admit date of 07/01/2025 with diagnoses that included in…
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 · D2025-09-24 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to administer the Influenza Vaccine on admit to the facility for 1 (#24) of 5 (#1 #3 # 4 # 8 #24) residents sampled for Influenza, Pneumococcal and COVID-19 immunizations.Findings: Review of the facility's undated policy titled Vaccine: Influenza read in part.Policy: All residents of the facility will be offered the influenza vaccine annually to encourage and promote the benefits associated with immunizations against influenza. Review of Resident #24's clinical record revealed an admission date of 10/30/2024 with diagnoses that included: Primary Generalized Osteoarthritis, Major Depressive Disorder, Alzheimer's Disease, Dementia, and Malignant Neoplasm of Lower Lobe Left Bronchus or Lung. Review of Resident #24's medical record revealed no evidence that she had received the Influenza vaccine in 2024 or 2025. Review of Resident #24's admission records revealed a consent form dated 10/30/2024 consenting to the Influenza vaccine. Interview on 09/24/2025 at 10:55 a.m. with S2 DON confirmed that Resident #24's responsible party had…
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 before2025-04-09 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene by failing to provide incontinence care for 1 (Resident #2) of 3 (Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3) sampled residents. Findings: Record review revealed Resident #2 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Traumatic Subdural Hemorrhage with Loss of Consciousness, Muscle Wasting and Atrophy, Overactive Bladder, and Lack of Coordination. Review of Resident #2's Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Review Date (ARD) of 02/21/2025 revealed, in part, a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was not conducted as resident was rarely or never understood. The resident was dependent for toileting hygiene. Toilet transfer was not attempted due to the resident's medical condition or safety concerns. Resident #2 was always incontinent of urine. Review of Resident #2'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 · Ecited before2024-07-31 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview the Facility failed to maintain a clean, sanitary environment and ensure food was served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Findings: Review of the facility policy titled: Storage: Freezer with no review date revealed in part .Keep all frozen foods tightly wrapped or packaged to prevent freezer burn. Observation on 07/29/2024 at 8:30 a.m. of the walk in freezer/cooler revealed: 1. 1 box of corn dogs open to air and undated. 2. 1 bag of biscuits open to air. 3. 1 bag of squash open to air and undated. 4. 1 bag of breadsticks open to air. Interview at the time of observation with S4 DM revealed the staff who opens a food item should label and date it and store it properly. S4 DM confirmed: The above listed items were not dated and were opened to air.
- Potential for harm · E2024-07-31 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, and to help prevent the development of communicable diseases and infections by failing to: 1. Ensure the use of Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) was communicated to staff for 4 (#6, #28, #80, and #283) of 4 (#6, #28, #80, and #283) Residents reviewed for Enhanced Barrier Precautions; and 2. Perform proper hand hygiene during wound care for 1 (#283) of 2 (#6 and #283) residents reviewed Findings: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) Information And Plan with no date, revealed the following, in part: 1. Residents who will be affected by Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) guidelines include residents who have the following: .chronic wound requiring a dressing regardless of the MDRO status .7. CMS has published an Enhanced barrier Precautions (EBP) sign for providers and staff to be aware of who should be on these precautions. Please place this sign on…
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 · D2024-07-31 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to transmit a MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessment within 14 days of completion for 1 (#56) of 1 sampled Resident with MDS record over 120 days old. Findings: Review of the clinical record for Resident #56 revealed the Resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Cerebral Infarction, Essential Hypertension, and Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side. Review of Resident #56's Quarterly MDS Assessment with ARD of 06/26/2024 revealed the assessment had been completed. Review of the facility's MDS transmission reports revealed Resident #56's Quarterly Assessment with ARD of 06/26/2024 had been transmitted on 07/31/2024. Interview on 07/31/2024 at 8:51 a.m. with S6 LPN/MDS Nurse revealed she forgot to notify the ADON to close and transmit the 06/26/2024 Quarterly MDS. S6 LPN/MDS Nurse confirmed the Quarterly MDS assessment had not been transmitted timely and should have been.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-31 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 who are unable to carry out ADL's (Activities of Daily Living) received the necessary services to maintain good grooming for 1(Resident #62) of 2 (Resident #38 and Resident #62) Residents reviewed for ADL's. The facility failed to ensure Resident #62 received a shave. The total Sample Size was 38. Findings: Review of the facility policy titled: Hygiene and Grooming with no review date read in part . Policy: Staff will provide resident with whatever assistance is necessary to keep their facial hair properly groomed. Review of Resident #62's Electronic Health Record revealed Resident #62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #62 had diagnoses that included in part .Acquired Absence of Left Leg, Cognitive Communication Deficit, Phantom Limb Pain and Dementia. Review of Resident #62's Quarterly MDS with ARD of 05/21/2024 revealed Resident #62 had a BIMS score of 8 (moderately impaired cognition). Resident #62…
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 · D2023-06-14 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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 ensure resident care equipment was kept clean for 1 (#61) of 3 residents (#17, #61 and #77) reviewed for tube feeding. There was a total of 12 residents in the facility who received tube feedings. The total sample was 25 residents. Findings: Review of Resident #61's Physician Orders dated 06/2023 revealed an order for Glucerna 1.5 at 50 ml/hour continuous feeding via pump. Observation on 06/12/2023 at 9:15 a.m. revealed Resident #61's feeding pump was in use and noted to be dirty with sticky tan colored substance. Observation on 06/12/2023 at 11:57 a.m. revealed Resident #61's feeding pump was in use and noted to remain soiled with sticky tan substance. Observation on 06/13/2023 at 8:37 a.m. revealed Resident #61's feeding pump was in use and remained soiled with yellow/tan sticky substances. Observation on 06/13/2023 at 11:45 a.m. revealed Resident #61's feeding pump was in use and remained soiled with yellow/tan sticky substance. Interview with S2 RN on 06/13/2023 at 3:48 p.m. revealed that nurses 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 · D2023-06-14 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to implement the plan of care to meet the needs of 1 (#33) out of a total of 25 sampled residents by failing to assist resident with meals and provide Ensure with meals as ordered by the physician. Findings: Review of Resident #33's Electronic Health Record revealed an admit date of 05/05/2017 with diagnoses that included in part .Moderate Protein-Calorie Malnutrition, Abnormal Weight Loss, Personal History of Traumatic Brain Injury and Flaccid Hemiplegia affecting Left Non-dominant Side. Review of Resident #33's Quarterly MDS with ARD of 01/27/2023 revealed Resident had a BIMS score of 3 (severely impaired cognition). Resident required extensive assistance, by two person physical assist with bed mobility, transfers, toileting, and 1 person physical assist with dressing, eating, and personal hygiene. Resident had upper and lower extremity range of motion impairment on left side. Resident required a mechanically altered, therapeutic diet. Review of Resident #33's Care Plan Review revealed in part . Potential for…
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
$16,149 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $16,149 — penalty dated 2025-04-09
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CENTRAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY — 21 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 | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 2.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 20 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, per CMS)
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KISATCHIE HEALTH, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 58% | since 01/01/2005 |
| MAUMALANGA, HOLLY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 5% | since 03/31/2025 |
| SHELTON, JAMES | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 20% | since 01/01/2005 |
| ZIMMERMAN, FREDA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 7% | since 03/31/2025 |
| PRICE, TEDDY | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2005 |
| CENTRAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2005 |
| BARTON, BRUCE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/26/2025 |
| BOLWAHNN, SHEILA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2008 |
| CANTRELL, JEFFREY LEE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2013 |
| ROGERS, DAWN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2005 |
| WALL, THERESA J | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/26/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 21 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 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.
About 75% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.8M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 21% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 LA
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 Louisiana 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 195420. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-24, 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.