Heritage Nursing Center
1745 Bailey Avenue, Haynesville, LA 71038 · For profit - Corporation · 82 certified beds · (318) 624-1166 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 25.9% | 17.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.4% | 5.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 4.6% | 1.2% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.8% | 2.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.9% | 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 | 0.8% | 3.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 47.3% | 17.9% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.6% | 23.2% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.5% | 94.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 10.0% | 5.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.5% | 15.8% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.5% | 22.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 8.5% | 3.1% | 1.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.39 | 2.56 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.42 | 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.
46.1% 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 28 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.34 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 58% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 23% 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 | 46.1%CMS range 29.6–58.0 | 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 7.0–16.5 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.98 | 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 82 beds and averages 37.0 residents a day — about 45% occupied, or roughly 45 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.33 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.54 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.01 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 2.96 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.48 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.60 to 0.37 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2026-05-13 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to ensure respiratory care was provided with professional standards of practice by not following the facility's policy regarding oxygen administration for 1(#25) of 2 (#7 and #25) reviewed for respiratory care. Findings:PolicyReview of the facility's Oxygen Administration Policy dated 01/15/2026 revealed: All safety precautions and care of equipment shall be performed according to recommended State and Federal guidelines and facility procedures. Prefilled humidifier bottles and nasal cannulas/masks will be changed every week and PRN (as needed). All tubing and bottles are to be labeled each week when changed. When the tubing is not being used, it should be stored properly in a zip lock bag. Review of Resident #25's physician order dated 04/10/2026 revealed an order for oxygen at 2 liters per minute per nasal cannula.An observation on 05/11/2026 at 10:00 a.m. revealed Resident #25's nasal cannula tubing connected to her oxygen tank was dated 04/18/2026. During an interview on 05/11/2026 at 11:33 a.m. S2 LPN…
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 before2026-05-13 · 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 record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a plan of care had been developed for 1 (#32) of 2 (#16, #32) residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility failed to ensure a plan of care was developed for Resident #32's contracture and total dependence on staff for activities of daily living. Findings: Review of Resident #32's medical record revealed an admit date of 04/01/2026 with a diagnosis of but not limited to type 2 diabetes mellitus, Alzheimer's disease unspecified, essential hypertension, and anorexia.Review of Resident #32's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed Resident #32 was assessed to have a BIMS (Brief Interview Mental Status Score) of 99 indicating Resident #32 was rarely understood and was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living including but not limited to oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, showering and bathing, upper and lower body dressing and all person hygiene.Observation on 05/11/2026 10:10 a.m. with S2 LPN (licensed practical nurse)…
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 · E2025-03-26 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure an alleged injury of unknown origin was reported to the State Survey Agency for 1 (#37) out of 4 (#7, #26, #32, #37) sampled residents investigated for accidents. Findings: Review of the facility's SIMS (Statewide Incident Management System) Investigation and Reporting Policy Statement policy with the latest revision date of 01/15/2025 revealed, in part: All reports of resident abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property, mistreatment and/or injuries of unknown source, falls with fractures related to unknown origin, and elopement shall be promptly reported to local, state and federal agencies (as defined by current regulations) and thoroughly investigated by facility management. Finding of abuse investigations will also be reported. 1. If an incident or suspected incident of resident abuse, mistreatment, neglect or injury of unknown source, falls with fracture related to unknown origin or elopement is reported, the Administrator begin the investigation immediately in compliance with federal…
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 before2025-03-26 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 (#26) of 4 (#1, #12, #26, #87) residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility failed to ensure Resident #26 was weighed weekly as per the physician order and in accordance with Resident #26's plan of care. Findings: Review of Resident #26's medical record revealed and admission date of 04/01/2023 with diagnoses including, in part, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy unspecified, dysphagia oropharyngeal phase, unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition, depression, and essential (primary) hypertension. Review of 02/26/2025 Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) revealed Resident #26 had a BIMS (Brief Interview Mental Status) score of 5 out of 15, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #26's physician orders revealed an order dated 02/18/2025 for Weekly weights X4 weeks - one time a day every Tue for 4 weeks. (Start date of 02/25/2025) Review of Resident #26's care plan revealed the resident had a nutritional problem related 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 · E2025-03-26 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure 2 (#4, #12) of 20 sampled residents (#2, #37, #32, #34, #87, #6, #10, #27, #1, #19, #8, #20, #26, #4, #7, #36, #33, #25, #35, #12) received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice by failing to ensure: 1. Resident #4 was administered Lasix (a diuretic medication) as ordered by the physician 2. Resident #12 was care planned for diabetes and had not been evaluated by a registered dietician. Findings: Resident #4 Review of Resident #4's record revealed an admit date of 11/01/2024 and diagnoses including end stage heart failure. Review of Resident #4's current Physician orders revealed orders included: -an order dated 02/12/2025-Monitor for Edema every shift. Chart Severity. Chart 0= No edema noted; 1= +1 Edema; 2= 2+ Edema, 3= 3+ Edema, 4= 4+ Edema noted, and; -an order dated 11/18/2024-Furosemide Oral Tablet 20 mg (milligrams) Give 1 tablet by mouth every 24 hours as needed for 2+ edema related to end stage heart failure-every day when 2+ edema is present. Review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-03-26 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — patternProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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 residents received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing and prevent the development of new pressure ulcers for 3 (#4, #8, and #19) of 3 (#4, #8, and #19) residents investigated for pressure ulcers by failing to: 1. perform weekly wound assessments for pressure ulcers for Resident # 4, #8, and #19 and; 2. conduct weekly skin assessments for Resident # 8 3. develop a care plan for pressure ulcers for Resident #4, #19 Findings: Review of the facility's Pressure Ulcers/Skin Breakdown-Clinical Protocol (undated) revealed in part: The nurse shall describe and document/report the following: a. Full assessment of pressure sore including location, stage, length, and width and depth, presence of exudates or necrotic tissue; b. Pressure sores are to be measured weekly along with its condition Review of the facility's Pressure Ulcer and Skin Injury Risk Assessment Policy revealed in part:…
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 · D2025-03-26 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was developed for 1 (#34 ) of 20 sampled residents. The facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was developed for Resident #34 within 48 hours of admission to the facility. Findings: Review of Resident #34's medical record revealed an admit date of 12/27/2025 with a diagnosis of but not limited to acute combined systolic (congestive) and diastolic (congestive) heart failure, anemia, and essential hypertension. Review of Resident #34's medical record failed to reveal a baseline care plan had been developed for Resident #34. During an interview on 03/26/2025 at 11:00 a.m. S2 DON (Director of Nurses) confirmed a baseline care plan should have been developed within 48 hours of Resident #34's admission to the facility and had not been.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-28 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor 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 record reviews and interview, the facility failed to inform and provide written information to residents or resident's representative concerning the right to formulate an advance directive for 3 (#7, #26, #35) of 6 (#1, #7, #13, #26, #33, #35) residents investigated for advance directives. Findings: Review of Resident #7's record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a readmission on [DATE]. Further review of Resident #7's record failed to reveal resident or resident's representative was provided with written information concerning advance directives. Review of Resident #26's record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review of Resident #26's record failed to reveal resident or resident's representative was provided with written information concerning advance directives. Review of Resident #35's record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a readmission on [DATE]. Further review of Resident #35's record failed 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 · E2024-02-28 · tag F0729 — patternVerify that a nurse aide has been trained; and if they haven't worked as a nurse aide for 2 years, receive retraining.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the state's Adverse Actions website was checked at the time of hire as required for 3 (S7CNA [Certified Nursing Assistant], S8CNA, S9CNA) of 6 (S7CNA, S8CNA, S9CNA, S10CNA, S11CNA, S12CNA) CNA personnel files reviewed. Findings: Review of the facility's Abuse Prevention Program (undated) revealed in part: Our residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. Review of S7CNA's personnel file revealed a hire date of 07/18/2023 with no adverse action check completed upon hire. Review of S8CNA's personnel file revealed a hire date of 10/13/2023 with no adverse action check completed upon hire. Review of S9CNA's personnel file revealed a hire date of 10/11/2023 with no adverse action check completed upon hire. During an interview on 02/27/2024 at 1:37 p.m., S6HR (Human Resources) confirmed the state's Adverse Actions website was not checked on hire for S7CNA, S8CNA, and S9CNA. S6HR further reported she did not know it should have been.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-28 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — patternEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure side effect monitoring for the use of antidepressant medication was completed for 1 (#32) of 5 (#11, #25, #26, #32, #35) sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings: Review of Resident #32's clinical record revealed an active diagnosis of major depressive disorder dated 02/16/2022. Review of Resident #32's physician orders revealed an order dated 02/18/2023 for Sertraline 50mg (milligram) tablet, give 1 tablet every day by mouth for major depressive disorder. Review of Resident #32's MAR (Medication Administration Record) for February 2024 failed to reveal side effects were monitored for the antidepressant, Sertraline. During an interview on 02/27/2024 at 10:05 a.m. S3LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) confirmed monitoring for side effects of the antidepressant was not on Resident #32's MAR or elsewhere in EHR (Electronic Health Record). During an interview on 02/27/2024 at 10:07 a.m. S2RN (Registered Nurse) reported side effect monitoring for antidepressants was not on Resident #32's MAR 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.
“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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PARAMOUNT HEALTHCARE CONSULTANTS — 14 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 1 of 5 | 2.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
The other 13 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SMITH, DAWNE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/01/2022 |
| TRI-STATE HEALTH SERVICES, INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| BEASLEY, WILLIAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/05/2024 |
| STEPHEN DUCK, CPA PC | Organization | GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| PARAMOUNT HEALTHCARE CONSULTANTS, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| BUTLER, CLINT | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/1999 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 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 $641K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% 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 195518. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-13, 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.