Baton Rouge Health Care Center
5550 Thomas Road, Baton Rouge, LA 70811 · Non profit - Corporation · 145 certified beds · (225) 774-2141 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- 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
- the CMS record shows $63,663 in federal fines (most recent 2024-06-20)
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 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 fell from 3 to 2 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 | 14.8% | 17.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.0% | 5.2% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.9% | 1.2% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.9% | 2.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.3% | 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 | 2.2% | 3.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.5% | 17.9% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.0% | 23.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.4% | 5.6% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 16.7% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.2% | 22.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.2% | 3.1% | 1.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.7% | 76.3% | 79.4% | better |
‡ 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.
68.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 28 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.
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 | 68.5%CMS range 52.6–83.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.2%CMS range 7.3–16.4 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.05 | 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 145 beds and averages 89.9 residents a day — about 62% occupied, or roughly 55 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 4.45 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.28 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.96 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 3.55 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.82 on weekdays — 26% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.35 to 0.10 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-06-20 · 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 record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents, who required the assistance of two staff and a mechanical lift for transfers, remained free of accident hazards for 1 (#1) of 4 (#1, #2, #3, and #R1) residents reviewed. This deficient practice resulted in an actual harm on 05/26/2024 at 7:15 a.m. when S3CNA transferred Resident #1, who required the assistance of 2 staff and a mechanical lift for transfers, from her bed to her wheelchair alone without using a mechanical lift. At 3:30 p.m., Resident #1 complained of pain rated at an 8 on a scale to 10. The resident's left leg was slightly edematous and she yelled out in pain when the leg was moved. Resident #1 was sent to the emergency room and diagnosed with a Closed Fracture of the Left Tibia and Fibula and a Proximal Right Tibial Fracture. The facility implemented corrective actions which were completed prior to the State Agency's investigation, thus it was determined to be a Past Noncompliance citation. Findings Review of the…
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 · E2025-10-01 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan. The facility failed to:1. Ensure Resident #15's call light was within reach and covered with bright tap; and 2. Ensure Resident #71 was care planned as a safe smokerThis deficient practice had the potential to affect a current census of 94 residents. Review of the facility's policy titled, Call Light/Call Pager Systems with an effective date of date of 10/27/2014, revealed the following, in part:Policy Statement 1.1 Purpose: To provide a means of communication to staff for notification of resident needs and a system of communication among staff in the facility; including emergency notifications.1.5 PolicyThe call system must be accessible to residents while in their bed or other sleeping accommodations within the resident's room. Resident #15Review of Resident #15's Clinical Record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included…
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 · E2025-10-01 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — patternEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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 services provided by the facility met professional standards of quality. The facility failed to follow standing physician orders and notify the physician of blood glucose reading over 400 for 2 (#7 and #15) of 3 (#7, #12, and #15) residents reviewed for insulin administration.Review of the facility's Blood Glucose Monitoring standing orders, updated on 12/31/2024 revealed the following, in part:All admissions/readmissions with a diagnosis of Diabetes should have accuchecks. Administer Novolog/Humalog insulin SQ as indicated in the parameters below.If glucose is greater than 400 give 10 units and notify provider for additional ordersResident #7Review of Resident #7's Clinical Record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had a diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Review of Resident #7's current physician orders revealed the following, in part:NovoLOG FlexPen 100 unit/mL (Insulin Aspart)-Inject as per sliding scale:401 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 before2025-10-01 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
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's call light was within reach for 2 (#15 and #99) of 24 residents reviewed during the initial pool. Review of the facility's policy titled, Call Light/Call Pager Systems with an effective date of date of 10/27/2014, revealed the following, in part:Policy Statement 1.1 Purpose: To provide a means of communication to staff for notification of resident needs and a system of communication among staff in the facility; including emergency notifications.1.5 PolicyThe call system must be accessible to residents while in their bed or other sleeping accommodations within the resident's room. Resident #15Review of Resident #15's Clinical Record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Cerebral Infarction and Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following Cerebral Vascular Accident. Review of Resident #15's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of…
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 · D2025-05-13 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
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 reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's bath was accurately documented for 1 (#3) of 3 (#1, #2, and #3) residents reviewed for ADL's (Activities of Daily Living). Findings: Review of Resident #3's Clinical Record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis Following Cerebral Infarction Affecting Right Dominant Side. Review of Resident #3's current Care Plan revealed the following, in part; Problem: I have an ADL self-care performance deficit related to Non-Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage with Right Sided Hemiplegia. Interventions: I am totally dependent on staff to provide a bath/shower. Review of Resident #3's Bath Flowsheet dated March 2025 to May 12, 2025 revealed the residents scheduled bath days were Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Further review revealed Resident #3 did not have a documented bath on Monday 03/24/2025, Friday 03/28/2025, and Monday 04/28/2025. On 05/13/2025 at 1:52 p.m., an interview…
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 · E2024-10-02 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
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 each resident was treated with respect and dignity and cared for them in a manner that promoted enhancement of quality of life for 4 of 4 (#1, #21, #70, and #82) residents reviewed for dignity. Findings: Review of facility's policy titled, Resident Rights, dated 12/2026, revealed, in part: Policy Statement: Employees shall treat all residents with kindness, respect, and dignity. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 1. Federal and state laws guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of this facility. These rights include the resident's right to: b. Be treated with respect, kindness, and dignity. Review of S8CNA's employee file revealed the following: Notice of Expected Improvement Date: 09/28/2024 Nature of Occurrence: Resident #70 reported S8CNA spoke to her in a very strong tone. Expected Improvement or Standard: S8CNA was counseled by her immediate supervisor and the administrator. S8CNA was advised improvement was expected…
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 before2024-10-02 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
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's call light was within reach for 2 (#2 and #83) of 32 residents reviewed during the initial pool. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Call Light/Call Pager Systems, with a revision date of 09/09/2022, revealed the following, in part: Policy: The call system must be accessible to residents while in their bed or other sleeping accommodations within the resident's room. Resident #2 Review of Resident #2's Clinical Record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Cerebral Infarction and Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis Following Nontraumatic Intracerebral Hemorrhage Affecting Left Non-Dominant Side. Review of Resident #2's current Care Plan revealed the resident was at risk for falls. Interventions included to keep the call bell within reach when in room and answer promptly. On 09/30/2024 at 10:19 a.m., an observation was made of Resident #2 in her room. She was sitting in a…
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 · D2024-10-02 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide privacy to residents when receiving assistance with personal care for 1 (#52) of 4 (#15, #52, #70, and #140) residents reviewed for ADL (Activities of Daily Living) care. The facility failed to ensure the privacy curtain was pulled between Resident #52 and his roommate prior to staff initiating assistance to change his soiled brief and bed linens. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Dignity, with a revision date of 02/2021, revealed the following, in part: Policy Statement: Each Resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances his or her sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with life, and feelings of self-worth and self-esteem. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 11. Staff promote, maintain and protect resident privacy, including bodily privacy during assistance with personal care and during treatment procedures. Review of Resident #52's Clinical Record revealed the resident was…
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 · D2024-06-20 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 as needed (PRN) orders for psychotropic medications were limited to 14 days and indicated the duration for 1 (#2) of 3 (#1, #2, and #3) sampled residents. Findings: Review of Resident #2's clinical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #2's June 2024 Physician's Orders revealed an order written on 06/03/2024 for Temazepam 7.5 mg tablet, one tablet by mouth as needed for Insomnia at night. Further review revealed the PRN medication had no stop date or duration. Review of Resident #2's June 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed Temazepam 7.5 mg tablet by mouth as needed for Insomnia at night was started on 06/03/2024. Further review revealed the PRN medication had no stop date or duration. On 06/20/2024 at 10:07 a.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. He reviewed Resident #2's June 2024 MAR and Physician Orders. He confirmed Temazepam was a psychotropic medication and was ordered PRN 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.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-04 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain a safe, functional, and sanitary environment. The facility failed to ensure: 1. There was a process in place to report and track maintenance concerns and commodes were maintained for 2 (#33 and #45) of 26 (#1, #3, #4, #10, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #27, #33, #35, #38, #42, #43, #44, #45, #46, #50, #57, #62, #64, #66, #69, #76, and #80) residents reviewed for environment in the initial pool. 2. Bedrails were clean and sanitized for 1 (Room B) out of 9 rooms reviewed for environment in the initial pool. Findings: 1. Resident #33 Review of Resident #33's MDS with an ARD of 08/02/2023 revealed he had a BIMS of 15, which indicated he was cognitively intact. Resident #45 Review of Resident #45's MDS with an ARD of 08/02/2023 revealed he had a BIMS of 15, which indicated he was cognitively intact. Review of the Maintenance Log from 09/21/2023 through 10/03/2023 revealed no entry related to Resident #33 and Resident #45's commode in Room A. An observation was made of the bathroom in Room A on 10/02/2023 at…
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 · D2023-10-04 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure grievances were reported to the grievance official for 1 (#1) of 3 (#1, #4, and #35) residents reviewed for grievances. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Care Grievance Policy revealed the following, in part: Policy: Grievances/complaints are to be submitted to the Administrator who is named as the Grievance Official or their designee Review of Resident #1's MDS with an ARD of 07/05/2023 revealed she had a BIMS of 15, which indicated she was cognitively intact. Review of the Facility's Grievance Log from April 2023 through September 2023 revealed no entries for Resident #1. An interview was conducted with Resident #1 on 10/02/2023 at 10:35 a.m. Resident #1 stated her pink purse became missing about two months ago. She stated she reported it to S19CNA and S20TD. An interview was conducted with S19CNA on 10/04/2023 at 11:55 a.m. She stated Resident #1 reported a missing purse to her two months ago. She stated she figured the purse got mixed with her laundry. She stated she went to the laundry…
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 · D2023-10-04 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure appropriate alternatives were attempted prior to installing bed or side rails for 1 of 1 (#10) residents reviewed for bed or side rails out of 26 residents screened for the initial pool. Findings: Review of the facility's Bed/Side Rails policy revealed, in part: Purpose: To ensure a bed is appropriate for the resident and that if bed rails are required, they are utilized, installed, and maintained properly. 1.5 Policy: Appropriate alternative methods to aid a resident in functional bed mobility must be attempted prior to installing a side or bed rail. Review of Resident #10's Clinical Record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Cerebral Palsy, Intellectual Disabilities, Lack of Coordination, and Contractures of the Right and Left Hands. Review of Resident #10's Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 07/19/2023 revealed he was unable to complete the BIMS assessment due to an inability to be…
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 · D2023-08-23 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 resident assessments accurately reflected the resident's status. The facility failed to ensure 1 (#4) of 5 (#1, #2, #3, #4, and #5) residents reviewed for Resident Assessment had an accurate MDS that reflected the resident's wound care status. Findings: Review of Resident #4's Clinical Record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Polyneuropathy, and Disorder of the Skin and Subcutaneous Tissue. Review of Resident #4's current Physician Orders revealed beginning on 05/21/2023, an order for DTI (Deep Tissue Injury) Right Heel: Paint with betadine three times weekly until resolved. Review of Resident #4's Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 06/07/2023 revealed the following questions and answers related to Section M - Skin Conditions: Current Number of Unhealed Pressure Ulcers/Injuries at Each Stage: G. Unstageable - Deep Tissue Injury 1. Number of unstageable pressure injuries…
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
$63,663 in federal fines across 2 penalties. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $21,863 — penalty dated 2024-06-20
- $41,800 — penalty dated 2023-10-04
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2023-11-02 for 13 days
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 COMMCARE CORPORATION — 14 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 | 5 of 5 | 3.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
The other 13 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.7★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COMMCARE CORPORATION | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 03/01/1994 |
| MANGUN, GAROLD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 06/09/1997 |
| MASSON, HENRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/1996 |
| PRECHTER, PATRICIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 03/01/2018 |
| HARVEY PSARELLIS, DAWN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| COMMCARE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2018 |
| GARDNER, GEORGE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2018 |
| GOUX, JON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2018 |
| HUDSON, MARY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2018 |
| TUCKER, JAMES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2010 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 10 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 82% 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 $820K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. 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 195361. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-10-01, 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.