Chateau Terrebonne Health Care Center
1386 West Tunnel Blvd., Houma, LA 70360 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 197 certified beds · (985) 872-4553 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — 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
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (27% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- about 26% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 improved from 2 to 5 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 | 13.3% | 17.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.9% | 5.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.2% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 14.3% | 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 | 3.7% | 3.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.5% | 17.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 29.1% | 23.2% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.2% | 94.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.4% | 5.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 6.9% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 26.2% | 22.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 4.4% | 3.1% | 1.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.0% | 76.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 31.0% | 28.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.4% | 14.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.29 | 2.56 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.90 | 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.
40.5% 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 97 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 41.9% 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 43 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 0.63 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 90% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 22% 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 | 40.5%CMS range 30.2–54.0 | 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 | 10.7%CMS range 7.7–14.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 41.9% | 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 | 37.2% | 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 | 27.9% | 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 | 97.3% | 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 | 1.2% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.8%CMS range 3.9–10.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.60 | 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 197 beds and averages 150.4 residents a day — about 76% occupied, or roughly 47 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.34 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.28 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.97 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 2.65 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.61 on weekdays — 27% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.29 to 0.25 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 27% is below 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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2026-05-06 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's medication administration was accurately documented for 3 (Resident #9, Resident #88, Resident #98) of 3 sampled residents investigated for accurate medication administration documentation. Findings:Review of the facility's Charting and Documentation policy and procedure, revised on 07/2017, revealed, in part, documentation in the medical record would be complete and accurate. Review of the facility's Administrating Medications policy and procedure, revised on 04/2019, revealed, in part, the individual that administered medication should sign on the resident's Electronic Medical Administration Record (eMAR) after giving each medication and before administering the next ones. On 05/06/2026 at 11:00AM, S2Director of Nursing (DON) was presented with a request for all February 2026 and March 2026 medication administration records for Resident #9, Resident #88, and Resident #98. Resident #9Review of Resident #9's medical 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 · D2026-05-06 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure unnecessary medications were reduced and failed to ensure physician-accepted gradual dose reduction (GDR) recommendations made by the consultant pharmacist were implemented for 1 (Resident #7) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings:Review of the facility's Administering Medications policy and procedure, revised 04/2019, revealed medications are to be administered in accordance with physician orders. Review of the Pharmaceutical Consultant Report - Psychoactive GDR form dated 01/07/2026 revealed the consultant pharmacist recommended a dose reduction for duloxetine (medication used to treat major depressive disorder) 30 milligrams (mg) at bedtime. Review of Resident #7's physician orders revealed a physician's order dated 01/19/2026 to discontinue duloxetine 30mg at bedtime. Review of Resident #7's active physician orders dated 05/01/2026 revealed duloxetine 30mg at bedtime remained an active order. Review of Resident #7's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 05/01/2026 through…
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 · D2026-05-06 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's environment was clean and sanitary for 1 (Resident #95) of 32 sampled residents reviewed for environmental concerns during initial pool observations. Findings:Review of the facility's Quality of Life Homelike Environment Policy, with a revision date of May 2017, revealed, in part, the facility would ensure a homelike environment which would include a clean, sanitary and orderly environment. Observation on 05/03/2026 at 10:51AM revealed, in part, the base of Resident #95's tube feeding pole was covered with an unidentified dry white and tan substance. Observation on 05/04/2026 at 10:30AM revealed, in part, ten to fifteen spots of an unidentified dried sticky tan substance to the base of Resident #95's tube feeding pole varying in size. Observation on 05/05/2026 at 2:32PM revealed, in part, ten to fifteen spots of an unidentified dried sticky tan substance to the base of Resident #95's tube feeding pole varying in size. In an interview on 05/05/2026 at 3:03PM, S2Director of Nursing (DON)…
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 · E2025-05-20 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to complete a care plan conference for 1 (Resident #119) of 1 (Resident #119) sampled residents investigated for care planning. Findings: Review of the facility's Resident Participation in Assessment and Care Plan policy, revised December 2016, revealed, in part, a comprehensive care plan was developed within 7 days of completion of the resident assessment and a 7 day advance notice of the care planning conference was provided to the resident and his or her representative. Review of Resident #119's record revealed no documented evidence, and the facility did not present any documented evidence, evidence a care plan conference had been completed after the completion of the MDS on 04/04/2025. In an interview on 05/18/2025 at 11:59AM, Resident #119 indicated he had not participated in a care plan conference. In an interview on 05/19/2025 at 11:29AM, S8Minimum Data Set Nurse (MDS Nurse) indicated Resident #119 had a MDS assessment completed on 04/04/2025 and should have had a care plan conference. S8MDS nurse indicated Resident…
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 before2025-05-20 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to assess a resident for self-administration of medications for 1 (Resident #143) of 1 (Resident #143) sampled residents reviewed for accident hazards. Findings: Review of the facility's Self-Administration of Medications policy and procedure revised on 12/2016 revealed, in part, the interdisciplinary team would assess each resident's cognitive and physical abilities to determine whether self-administration of medications was safe and clinically appropriate for the resident. Further review revealed any medications found at the bedside that were not authorized for self-administration were turned over to the nurse in charge for return to the family or responsible party. Review of Resident #143's clinical record revealed Resident #143 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #143's Quarterly Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date of 03/18/2025 revealed, in part, Resident #143 had a Brief Interview of Mental…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-20 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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 provide the resident or responsible party (RP) with written notice which specified the duration of the bed-hold policy at the time of transfer to the hospital for 2 (Resident #16, Resident #86) of 2 (Resident #16, Resident #86) sampled residents investigated for hospitalizations. Findings: Review of the facility's Bed Hold and Returns policy, revised on 04/16/2024, revealed, in part, when a resident was transferred to the hospital, or goes out on therapeutic leave, a copy of this form (Notice of Hospital Transfer/Therapeutic Leave) was sent with the resident, and the resident representative will be notified specifying the duration of the bed-hold according to state plan, and the facilities policy regarding bed-hold periods. In cases of emergency transfer, notice at the time of transfer means that the family or resident representative are provided with written notification within 24 hours of the transfer. Resident #16 Review of Resident #16's 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 · D2025-05-20 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide 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 interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to complete quarterly safe smoking assessments for 1 (Resident #11) of 1 (Resident #11) sampled residents investigated for smoking. Findings: Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Smoking Policy-Resident, dated 2001 and revised on 03/08/2023, revealed once the resident was determined to be a smoker, his/her ability to smoke safely would be evaluated upon admission, with subsequent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment and as needed. Review of Resident #11's annual MDS with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 09/16/2024 revealed Resident #11 used tobacco. Review of the facility's list of smoker's documentation revealed, in part, Resident #11 was determined to be a smoker. Review of Resident #11's medical record revealed the last Safe Smoking Assessment document was completed on 09/16/2024 with Resident #11's Annual MDS. Further review revealed a Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 12/15/2024 and a Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 03/13/2025 was completed. In an interview on 05/19/2025 at 10:36AM, S7 MDS Coordinator…
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 before2024-05-09 · tag F0554 — patternAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to assess residents for self-administration of drugs for 2 (Resident #9 and Resident #61) of 29 (Resident #2, Resident #9, Resident #22, Resident #25, Resident #26, Resident #29, Resident #30, Resident #36, Resident #43, Resident #54, Resident #55, Resident #61, Resident #73, Resident #77, Resident #84, Resident #90, Resident #96, Resident #109, Resident #113, Resident #121, Resident #122, Resident #127, Resident #135, Resident #138, Resident #139, Resident #140, Resident #197, Resident #297, and Resident #397) sampled residents. Findings: Review of the facility's Self-Administration of Medications policy, revised December 2016, revealed, in part, residents had the right to self-administer medications if the interdisciplinary team had determined that it was clinically appropriate and safe for the resident to do so. Resident #9 Review of Resident #9's record revealed Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of, 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 · D2024-05-09 · 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
Based on record reviews, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's tracheostomy care was completed in a sanitary manner for 1 (Resident #90) of 1 (Resident #90) sampled residents investigated for mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy care. Findings: Review of Resident #90's Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date of 04/21/2024 revealed, in part, Resident #90 had diagnoses of cardiorespiratory conditions and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia. Further review revealed Resident #90 received tracheostomy care and invasive mechanical ventilation. Review of Resident #90's May 2024 physician's orders revealed, in part, an order for Resident #90 to receive tracheostomy care twice per day. Further review revealed an order to change Resident #90's disposable inner cannula once per day. Review of Resident #90's care plan for ventilator dependence revealed, in part, interventions for Resident #90 to receive tracheostomy care twice in a 24-hour period and Resident #90's inner cannula to be changed once in a 24-hour period or more as necessary.…
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 PRIORITY MANAGEMENT — 38 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 2.9 | +2.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
The other 37 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| QUALITY HOME GROUP, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 07/01/2010 |
| ALB MULTIGENERATIONAL FAMILY TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/31/2020 |
| ANRAND LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2015 |
| BLONDEAU LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/31/2020 |
| CDB 2020 MULTIGENERATIONAL FAMILY TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/31/2020 |
| F&W BIGBY PROPERTIES, L.P. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2010 |
| HAYDEN HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2010 |
| KCSD VENTURES, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2010 |
| PRESTIGE VENTURES LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2010 |
| SMAK HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2010 |
| BIGBY, WALTER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2010 |
| BOULWARE, THOMAS | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2010 |
| MEANS, ANASTASIA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2015 |
| MEANS, NOBLE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2015 |
| MEANS, WILLIAM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2015 |
| WALKER, KATIE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/01/2010 |
| BLONDEAU, ALEXANDER | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 07/01/2010 |
| BOULWARE, DOUGLAS | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2010 |
| BOULWARE, STEVEN | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| PRIORITY MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2024 |
| BRIDGEPOINTE FINANICAL SERVICES, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2010 |
| PROGRESSIVE REHAB SOLUTIONS, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| BOYD, ELISE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/21/2013 |
| PEARCE, CHARLES | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/20/2025 |
| WALKER, PATRICK | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/20/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 65 rows in the source record cover these 25 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
13 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 $4.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 26% 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 195602. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-06, 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.