Landmark Nursing Center Hammond
42250 North Oaks Dr, Hammond, LA 70403 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 150 certified beds · (985) 542-8570 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $175,997 in federal fines (most recent 2024-08-09)
- its payroll-based staffing score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure 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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the staffing score rests on the facility's own payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 1 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 | 16.3% | 17.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.8% | 5.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.0% | 1.2% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.4% | 2.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 5.2% | 2.3% | 6.5% | worse 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 | 7.8% | 3.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.6% | 17.9% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.0% | 23.2% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.4% | 94.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.5% | 5.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.3% | 15.8% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.0% | 22.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.6% | 3.1% | 1.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.6% | 76.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.8% | 28.0% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.1% | 14.8% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.63 | 2.56 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.98 | 2.74 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
58.5% 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 59 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 38.5% 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 52 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 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 43% 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 | 58.5%CMS range 45.8–70.0 | 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 | 10.6%CMS range 7.2–13.9 | 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 | 38.5% | 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 | 34.6% | 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 | 23.1% | 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 | 93.2% | 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 | 1.4% | 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 | 2.7% | 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 | 7.2%CMS range 4.2–11.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.13 | 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 150 beds and averages 138.1 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 12 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 3.77 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.34 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.34 is below 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 3.21 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.00 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.43 to 0.13 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2024-08-09 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — patternAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record reviews, the administration failed to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical well-being of each resident. The administration failed to implement a system to help prevent the development and/or transmission of infections by failing to: 1 Utilize its Infection Control and Prevention Program, follow its policies and procedures to surveil, and isolate known clusters of rashes for 5 of 5 (#1, #2, #3, #4 and #R1) residents reviewed for rashes; and 2 Ensure 4 of 4 (S17CNA, S20LPN, S4HK and S10HK) staff adhered to proper infection control practices when providing care for 1 of 1 (#R2) of residents reviewed for Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation on 06/10/2024 when Resident #4 presented with generalized itching and a rash. Resident #2 presented with a similar rash on 07/16/2024. Resident #3 presented with a similar rash on 07/24/2024. On 07/26/2024, Residents #1 and #R1 presented with similar rashes. On 07/31/2024, Resident #4…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2024-08-09 · 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 help prevent the development and/or transmission of infections by failing to: 1 Implement a system for controlling and preventing the spread of transmittable infections for 5 of 5 (#1, #2,#3, #4, and #R1) residents reviewed for rashes; and 2 Ensure 4 of 4 (S17CNA, S20LPN, S4HK and S10HK) staff adhered to proper infection control practices when providing care for 1 of 1 (#R2) of residents reviewed for Enhanced Barrier Precautions(EBP). This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation on 06/10/2024 when Resident #4 presented with generalized itching and a rash. Resident #2 presented with a similar rash on 07/16/2024. Resident #3 presented with a similar rash on 07/24/2024. On 07/26/2024, Residents #1 and #R1 presented with similar rashes. On 07/31/2024, Resident #4 was treated for Scabies. The facility failed to identify Resident's #1, #2, #3, #4, and #R1 similar rashes as a potentially transmittable skin infection…
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 before2026-01-22 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to store food under sanitary conditions by failing to ensure food was properly labelled and stored in the unit refrigerators. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 131 residents who were capable of storing and consuming food in the facility's unit refrigerators.Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Rules for Food Brought in by Visitors with a revision date of 08/2025 revealed the following:The community shall permit residents the pleasure of consuming food made for them by family.while establishing safeguards to prevent foodborne illnesses.Food brought in to the community must be in a leak proof sealed container that is labeled with the resident's name, contents, and date.The food shall.discarded after 3 days from preparation. On 01/21/2026 at 8:40 a.m., an observation was made of Refrigerator A with a sign posted on the outside stating, resident use, please put name, room number and date. Further observation revealed the following food items:Freezer:1 pint of ice cream- no name or…
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 · D2026-01-22 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding by failing to ensure tube feeding formula and free water flushes were administered per physician's orders for 1 (#67) of 2 residents reviewed for tube feedings.Review of the facility's policy titled Tube Feedings with revision date of 12/2015, revealed in part, the following:1. All tube feedings will be administered in accordance with physician's orders.Review of Resident #67's clinical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Gastrostomy Status, Dysphagia Following Cerebral Infarction, and Unspecified Diastolic Congestive Heart Failure.Review of Resident #67's current physician orders revealed in part, the following:Enteral feed, every shift, tube feeding formula at 70 mL/hr continuously. Start date 06/27/2025.Enteral feed, every shift, flush tube with…
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 before2025-01-16 · 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 the MDS assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 (#70) resident out of a total of 28 sampled residents. The facility failed to ensure: 1.) Resident #70 was coded accurately for Restraints and Alarms; 2.) Resident #70 was coded accurately for current services provided by the facility. Findings: Review of Resident #70's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/11/2024 revealed the following: Section O0110: Special Treatments, Procedures and Programs: K1- Hospice Care- b. While a Resident Section P0200: Restraints and Alarms: E. Wander/Elopement Alarm- 0-Not Used Review of Resident #70's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review of the electronic health record revealed Resident #70 had a security bracelet placed on 09/12/2024. Review of the Physician Order's from admission to present revealed no order for Hospice services being provided. On 01/15/2025…
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 before2025-01-16 · 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 reviews, the facility failed to ensure interventions for falls were implemented as identified on the care plan for 1 (#31) of 2 (#31 and #105) residents reviewed for falls. Findings: Review of Resident #31's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review revealed the resident had diagnoses which included Unsteadiness on Feet and Encounter for Orthopedic Aftercare. Review of Resident #31's Significant Change MDS with an ARD of 10/16/2024 revealed a BIMS of 10, which indicated she was moderately cognitively impaired. Review of Resident #31's current Care Plan revealed the following: Problem: Potential for further falls related to lack of coordination. Intervention: 01/06/2025 fall in room-turn bed against the wall On 01/14/2025 at 12:30 p.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #31's family member. He stated Resident #31 fell out of her bed last week and had to have surgery on her hip. On 01/14/2025 at 9:47 a.m., an observation…
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 · D2024-08-09 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 medications were administered to meet the needs of each resident by failing to ensure orders were entered correctly and administered for 1 (#2) of 5 (#1, #2, #3, #4, and #R1) residents reviewed for rashes. Findings: Review of the facility policy titled, Elements of a Medication Order with a revision date of 11/2017 revealed the following, in part: Medication orders should specify the following: d. Time or frequency of administration PRN (as needed) clearly states the reason/condition for which they are being administered. Review of Resident #2's clinical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses which included Pruritus and Disorder of the Skin and Subcutaneous Tissue, Unspecified. Review of Resident #2's Physician Order's revealed the following, in part: 08/01/2024 Mupirocin 2% cream apply to affected area twice daily and as needed. Review of Resident #2's Medication Administration Record (MAR) from…
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 before2024-01-23 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This had the potential to effect 141 residents who were served meals from the kitchen. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled Food Storage Labeling revealed in part, the following: Policy: The facility will ensure the safety and quality of food by following good storage and labeling procedures. d. Product Placement Food is stored in containers that are durable, leak proof and can be tightly sealed or covered. An observation was made on 01/17/2024 at 12:12 p.m. of the facility's walk-in pantry with S2FNS which included: -One opened, unsealed, ¼ full, 42 ounce box of quick oats, with no open date; -One opened, unsealed, ½ full, 42 ounce box of quick oats, with no open date; and -One opened, ¾ full, 128 ounce container of lemon juice with a label, which read, refrigerate after opening. An observation was made on 01/17/2024 at 12:20 p.m. of the facility's walk-in refrigerator with S2FNS which included, one opened, unsealed,…
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 before2024-01-23 · 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 ensure interventions for falls were implemented as identified on the care plan for 1(#26) of 4 (#26, #27, #103 and #105) residents reviewed for falls. Findings: Review of the clinical record for Resident #26 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident had diagnoses that included Displaced Fracture of Lesser Trochanter of Right Femur, Muscle Weakness, and Lack of Coordination. Review of Resident #26's Yearly MDS revealed an ARD of 12/22/2023 and a BIMS of 15, which indicated he was cognitively intact. Review of the most current Care Plan revealed the following: Problem: 07/23/2022- Potential for further falls r/t history of falls. Intervention: 10/13/2023- non-skid tape to floor in front of recliner. On 01/22/24 at 8:48 a.m., an observation was made of Resident #26's room. There was no non-skid tape to floor in front of recliner. On 01/22/24 at 8:58 a.m., an interview and observation was conducted with…
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.
- No harm found · B2024-06-20 · tag F0732 — patternPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing data, including actual hours worked for licensed and unlicensed nursing staff, was posted daily in a prominent location readily accessible to residents and visitors. This deficient practice had the potential to affect any of the 139 residents residing in the facility. Findings: Review of the facility's policy dated October 2022 and titled Posting of Staff revealed in part, the following: As required by Federal mandate, on a daily basis, the facility must post the following data: 6. Actual time worked for the specified categories of nursing staff. At the end of each shift the actual hours worked will be entered on the form. An observation was made on 06/17/2024 at 7:00 a.m. of the staffing data sheets dated 06/14/2024 - 06/16/2024. Further review revealed no documentation of the actual hours worked by registered nurses, licensed practical nurses or licensed vocational nurses, and certified nurse aides. An interview was conducted on 06/17/2024 at 7:05 a.m. with S2DON. She reviewed 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.
- No harm found · Bcited before2024-01-23 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure 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 for 2 (#80 and #86) of 32 residents reviewed for MDS. Findings: Resident #80 Review of Resident #80's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Anemia in Chronic Kidney Disease, Urinary Tract Infection (UTI), and Acute Cystitis without Hematuria. Review of Resident #80's Diagnosis Sheet revealed UTI's on 01/12/2023, 02/23/2023, 09/27/2023, and 12/08/2023. Review of Resident #80's Urinalysis dated 11/28/2023 revealed a positive culture for Citrobacter freundii. Review of Resident #80's Medical Records revealed she was admitted to a long term acute hospital on [DATE] for Multi Drug Resistant Organism Urine, UTI, and Acute Kidney Injury. Review of Resident #80's Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 12/14/2023 revealed a BIMS of 15, which indicated she was cognitively intact. Further review revealed UTI's were not coded as active…
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
$175,997 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $175,997 — penalty dated 2024-08-09
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to 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 | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 3.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 2.0 | ≈ chain avg |
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
CMS ownership filings flag an owner of this facility as an investment firm. That’s a fact worth knowing about who ultimately profits from the home. Read the inspection and staffing record above on its own merits.
- LENA HERITAGE LLC — investment firm · 85.00% share · 5% Or Greater Direct Ownership Interest
Source: CMS SNF ownership filings (PECOS). These flags are self-reported and undercount — federal auditors (GAO) and researchers find CMS captures only a fraction of true private-equity and REIT ties, so the absence of a flag on other homes is not proof they lack investor owners. How investor ownership affects care →
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LENA HERITAGE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 85% | since 01/01/2010 |
| GAMBURG, HAROLD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 5% | since 01/01/2010 |
| KOLB, EVAN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 5% | since 01/01/2010 |
| WILLIAMS, HIBERNIA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 5% | since 01/01/2010 |
| BEEBE, NANCY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 14% | since 01/01/2010 |
| SADLER, JOSEPH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 14% | since 01/01/2010 |
| STALLARD, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 14% | 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 |
| CAULFIELD, KYLE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/08/2013 |
| PICOU, SCOTT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| SMITH, ALISSA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/06/2023 |
| SMITH, HUNTER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2021 |
| ARIA CARE MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2022 |
| ELTON G BEEBE FAMILY MORTAGE TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| LTC HIM CONSULTING INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/11/2006 |
| MONROE MANOR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| PHARMACEUTICAL CONSULTING SERVICES OF AMERICA LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/16/2010 |
| 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 |
| WINDHAM HOUSE OF HATTIESBURG LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 51 rows in the source record cover these 29 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
16 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 71% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 195484. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-22, 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.