Forest Manor Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
1330 Ochsner Blvd, Covington, LA 70433 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 172 certified beds · (985) 892-6900 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- 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 $13,625 in federal fines (most recent 2024-02-08)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
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) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 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 3 to 4 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 | 8.4% | 17.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.5% | 5.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.6% | 1.2% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.5% | 2.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.3% | 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 | 3.8% | 3.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.2% | 17.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.9% | 23.2% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.4% | 94.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.3% | 5.6% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.8% | 15.8% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.3% | 22.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.7% | 3.1% | 1.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.7% | 76.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.3% | 28.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.5% | 14.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.12 | 2.56 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.77 | 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.
48.6% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 96 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 67.8% 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 59 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 0.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 28% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. 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 | 48.6%CMS range 38.7–58.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 8.0%CMS range 5.9–10.9 | 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 | 67.8% | 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 | 61.0% | 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 | 45.8% | 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 | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 6.4% | 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 | 8.1%CMS range 5.1–12.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.08 | 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 172 beds and averages 163.2 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 9 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.94 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.26 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.59 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 3.22 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.24 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.32 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 52% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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 · J2024-02-08 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 reviews, the facility failed to ensure an effective system was in place for advanced directives. The facility failed to ensure a resident's medical records accurately reflected the residents' wishes for emergency basic life support for 1 (#9) of 34 reviewed for Advanced Directives. This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation on [DATE], when Resident #9 was admitted to Hospice care and her code status changed from receiving CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) to DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). Resident #9 had a physician's order in the Electronic Medical Record revealing end of life wishes were DNR, which did not match the Advanced Directive wishes in the Physical Medical Chart, to receive CPR. Interviews with staff revealed the facility's procedure was to follow the Physical Medical Chart to verify resident code status in case of an emergency. Due to the system breakdown, this deficient practice had the likelihood to cause harm to newly admitted residents 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 · Ecited before2026-02-11 · 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 record review, observations and interviews, 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 and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. The facility failed to ensure staff transported linens in a manner to prevent the spread of communicable diseases and infection. This had the potential to effect 168 residents living in the facility.Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Control Linen Handling dated 06/14 revealed the following:Soiled Linen can be a source of infection and should be handled carefully. Soiled linen.Deposit soiled linen.into hamper. cover. On 02/09/2026 at 8:45 a.m., an observation was made of a CNA transporting an uncovered laundry basket to the soiled linen room. The uncovered linen basket was handed to S3LDY. On 02/09/2026 at 8:46 a.m., an interview was conducted with S3LDY. She confirmed the uncovered laundry basket contained soiled linen. She further confirmed soiled linens should always 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 · D2026-02-11 · tag F0694 — isolatedProvide for the safe, appropriate administration of IV fluids for a resident when needed.
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 administer parenteral fluids consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 (#5) resident reviewed for intravenous antibiotic therapy. The facility failed to administer antibiotic therapy at the prescribed rate for Resident #5.Review of the facility's policy dated 10/2016, titled Administration of Fluids/Medications via a Central Line Catheter revealed in part, the following:11. Start the infusion at the prescribed rate. Review of Resident #5's Clinical Record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #5's current Physician Orders revealed an order for Cefepime Intravenous Solution 2 grams per 100 milliliters. Use 2 grams intravenously three times a day.An observation was made on 02/10/2026 at 11:55 a.m. of S7LPN initiating Resident #5's Cefepime intravenous infusion. S7LPN initiated the infusion at 150 mL an hour. The Cefepime intravenous bag label read infuse at 100 mL an hour.An interview 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 · D2026-02-11 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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 ensure each resident received necessary respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice. The facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing was changed in a timely manner for 1 of 1 (#119) resident reviewed for oxygen therapy.Review of the facility's policy dated 08/2021, titled, Infection Control Oxygen Equipment Cleaning revealed the following, in part:7. Tubing should be replaced every 7 days. Review of Resident #119's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Review of Resident #119's MDS with an ARD of 12/31/2025 revealed she had a BIMS of 15, which indicated she was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #119's current Physician Orders revealed the following, in part:Start Date: 06/03/2024, oxygen at 2 L nasal cannula every 1 hour as needed. An observation was made on 02/09/2026 at 9:19 a.m. of Resident #119's oxygen tubing.…
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 before2025-01-30 · 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure services provided by the facility met professional standards of quality. The facility failed to ensure accuchecks were completed timely and insulin was administered before meals as ordered for 2 (#81, #93) of 4 (#8, #76, #81, and #93) residents reviewed for insulin administration. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Administration of Medications revealed the following, in part: Purpose: To administer medications in accordance with best practice. Procedure: 2. Administration of any drug requires a physician's order. Resident #81 Review of Resident #81's Clinical Record revealed he was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses, which included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Diabetic Neuropathy. Review of Resident #81's current Physician Orders revealed the following, in part: Novolog Flex Pen U-100 Insulin Apart 100 units/mL subcutaneous Pen-injector: administer 4 units subcutaneously before each meal as…
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 · E2025-01-30 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 the medication error rate was less than 5% for 3 (#88, #81 and #93) of 7 (#7, #8, #13, #76, #88, #81, and #93) residents observed during medication administration. A total of 26 opportunities were observed with 3 medication errors, which resulted in a medication error rate of 11.54%. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Resident #88's Eliquis was given as ordered; and 2. Resident #81's Insulin was administered before meals as ordered. 3. Resident #93's Insulin was administered before meals as ordered. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Administration of Medications revealed the following, in part: Purpose: To administer medications in accordance with best practice. Procedure: 2. Administration of any drug requires a physician's order. 3. Drugs and biologicals are administered nor more than one hour before and no more than one hour after dosage time on order. Resident #88 Review of Resident #88's Clinical Record…
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 · E2025-01-30 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 it was free of significant medication errors for 3 (#88, #81 and #93) of 7 (#7, #8, #13, #76, #88, #81, and #93) residents reviewed for medications. The deficient practice had the potential to effect the 158 residents residing in the facility who received medications. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Administration of Medications revealed the following, in part: Purpose: To administer medications in accordance with best practice. Procedure: 2. Administration of any drug requires a physician's order. 3. Drugs and biologicals are administered no more than one hour before and no more than one hour after dosage time on order. Resident #88 Review of Resident #88's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses, which included Chronic Systolic Congestive Heart Failure. Review of Resident #88's January 2025 Physician Orders revealed the following, in part: Eliquis 5mg one tablet by…
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 before2025-01-30 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to implement and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. The facility failed to ensure: 1. A resident's catheter remained off of the floor for 1(#91) of 3 (#24, #91, and #407) residents observed with an indwelling catheter; and 2. Staff properly utilized Enhanced Barrier Precaution (EBP) Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) during care for 4 of 4 (#24, #91, #407, and #409) residents whom required EBP. Findings: 1. Review of Resident #91's Clinical Record revealed she was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included the following, in part: Personal History of Urinary Tract Infections, Retention of Urine, and Urgency of Urination. Review of Resident #91's current Physician Orders revealed Catheter-Foley 18F with an onset date of 05/31/2024. 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 · D2025-01-30 · 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 record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1(#106) of 31 sampled residents by failing to ensure Resident #106 was coded correctly for a urinary tract infection (UTI). Findings: Review of Resident #106's Clinical Record revealed admission date of 06/15/2021, with diagnoses which included History of UTI. Review of Resident #106's Annual MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/30/2024, revealed Section I: Infections, Line I2300-UTI in last 30 days coded No by S4LPN on 12/31/2024. Review of Resident #106's Physician's Orders revealed Doxycycline 100 mg by mouth twice a day for 5 days related to History of UTI with an onset date of 12/23/2024. Review of Resident #106's Nurse's Notes revealed on 12/23/2024 the writer noted new order Doxycycline 100 mg by mouth twice a day for 5 days. Review of Resident #106's Physician's Progress note dated 12/23/2024 History of Present Illness section revealed, 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 · D2025-01-30 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to meet the needs of 1 (#134) resident out of 31 total sampled residents. The facility failed to ensure Resident #134 was care planned for nutritional assistance in which she required supervision with meals. Findings: Review of Resident #134's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Parkinson's Disease and Dysphagia. Review of Resident #134's Quarterly MDS with ARD of 12/06/2024 revealed Section GG: Eating was coded as supervision or touching assistance with one person physical assistance. Review of Resident #134's most recent Care Plan failed to reveal any interventions for activities of daily living related to eating nor any interventions for nutritional assistance needed. Review of Resident #134's Speech Therapy (ST) Discharge summary dated [DATE] revealed in part ST educated Resident #134 and staff on how to implement…
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 before2024-02-08 · 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 were provided to meet quality professional standards for 2 (#4 and #98) of 32 residents reviewed in the final sample. The facility failed to ensure the following: 1. Nursing staff accurately documented the administration of oxygen therapy services and application of orthopedic walking boot for Resident #4, and 2. Nursing staff accurately documented administration of oxygen therapy services for Resident #98. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Oxygen Administration, Concentrator, Storage, Assemblage revealed the following, in part: Procedure: 1. Obtain appropriate physician's order. Resident #4 Review of Resident #4's clinical record revealed Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included Displaced Oblique Fracture of Shaft of Right Fibula, Chronic Diastolic Congestive Heart Failure, and Atrial Fibrillation. Review of Resident #4's MDS with an ARD of 01/17/2024 revealed a BIMS of 14, which indicated…
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 · E2024-02-08 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received adequate supervision to prevent an accident for 1 (#125) of 6 (#9, #92, #94, #125, #128, and #137) residents reviewed for accidents. Findings: Review of Resident #125's Clinical Record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses which included Urinary Tract Infection, Lack of Coordination, Abnormal Gait and Mobility, and History of Falls. Review of Resident #125's Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 01/05/2024 revealed he had a BIMS of 9, which indicated he was moderately cognitively impaired. Further review of the MDS revealed he required supervision or touching assistance with ambulation. Review of Resident #125's Care Plan revealed the following, in part: Problem Onset: 04/28/2023 Problem: Risk for falls related to history of falls. Approaches, in part: Bright sign placed in bathroom, on 09/20/2023 added bright tape to bathroom call light for visual cue. Problem Onset: 01/10/2024 Problems: At risk 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 · E2024-02-08 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
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, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled and stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Narcotic medication was stored appropriately in 1 (Cart D) out of 8 (Cart A, Cart B, Cart C, Cart D, Cart E, Cart F, Cart G, and Cart H) medication carts observed, and 2. Medications were stored in a locked compartment and not available to unauthorized staff or residents to access for 1 (#159) of 8 (#81, #105, #111, #121, #129, #142, #159 and #513) residents reviewed for medication administration. Findings: 1. An observation was made of Cart D on 02/05/2024 at 3:00 p.m. with S13LPN with one loose, white, oblong pill stamped with M367 in an unlabeled medication cup. An interview was conducted on 02/05/2024 at 3:29 p.m. with S13LPN following the above observation. She confirmed the loose, white, oblong pill stamped with M367 was hydrocodone 10mg. She stated, a while ago,…
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 before2024-02-08 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Staff practiced proper glove use and hand hygiene during meal service. This had the potential to affect all of the 163 residents residing in the facility. 2. Oxygen tubing remained off the floor and covered when not is use for 2 (#4 and #81) of 5 (#4, #24, #81, #92 and #112) residents reviewed for oxygen. Findings: 1. Review of facility's policy titled Hand Hygiene revealed, in part: Purpose - To cleanse hands to prevent transmission of infection or other conditions. - To provide clean, health environment for residents, staff and visitors. Indication for hand washing 3. Before and after procedures. 9. Wearing gloves does not replace the need to perform hand hygiene. Selecting Hand Washing Method: 2. When to…
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 · D2024-02-08 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management 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 interviews, the facility failed to ensure pain management was provided to residents who require such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences. The facility failed to ensure a resident had pain medication available when necessary for 1 (#63) of 32 residents reviewed in the final sample. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Pain Screen and Management revealed, in part: All residents who experience routine pain receive a comprehensive pain screening and a treatment plan until acceptable level of relief is achieved. 4. Acute onset of pain: a. A pain screen is completed when a resident has a new onset of pain, a new type of pain, new pain medication or treatment, or when a resident has not experienced an acceptable level of pain relief. b. When documenting regarding pain, the following elements should be addressed: Date and time of onset, location of pain, character,…
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
$13,625 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $13,625 — penalty dated 2024-02-08
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-03-06 for 9 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 THE BEEBE FAMILY — 48 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 3.3 | -1.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
The other 47 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 47; lowest-rated first.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACT INVESTMENTS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 15% | since 01/01/2010 |
| MEDICO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 85% | since 01/01/2010 |
| DAVID & FELICIA STALLARD CHILD TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 01/01/2010 |
| ELTON GLYNN BEEBE JR. & NANCY DOTY BEEBE IRRV TR UA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 5% | since 01/01/2010 |
| GERARD AND ALISON DANOS CHILDRENS TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2010 |
| JOSEPH & ALISON SADLER CHILDREN TR | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2010 |
| PARKINSON, TONI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| PATHWAY SOUTH LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2013 |
| PROVIDENCE CARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/07/2020 |
| PROVIDER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| TRISTAR REHAB INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2024 |
| BEEBE, BOBBY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/11/2021 |
| BEEBE, ELTON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| MCCLANAHAN, MATTHEW | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/18/2023 |
| PERE, CLAY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/03/2020 |
| SMITH, SAVANNAH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/09/2022 |
| STALLARD, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/07/2020 |
| THIBODAUX, EARL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2013 |
| ARIA CARE MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2022 |
| FOREST MANOR LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| LTC HIM CONSULTING INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/28/2007 |
| PHARMACEUTICAL CONSULTING SERVICES OF AMERICA LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/22/2011 |
| QSST TR FOR ALISON BEEBE SADLER DANOS AND HER DESCENDANTS | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| QSST TR FOR FELICIA BEEBE STALLARD AND HER DESCENDANTS | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| VERDIN ENTERPRISES, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 42 rows in the source record cover these 27 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
19 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.
This home reported $1.5M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. 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, FY2023). 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 195490. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-11, 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.