Terrebonne General Med Ctr SNF
8166 Main Street, Houma, LA 70360 · Non profit - Other · 6 certified beds · (985) 873-4141 Medicare only — no Medicaid
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
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — 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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | Not rated |
| 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 |
| 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 3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 97.1% | 76.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.7% | 28.0% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.4% | 14.8% | 12.0% | 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.
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.
49.0% 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 49 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 11.4% 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 35 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.
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 | 49.0%CMS range 36.6–60.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.4%CMS range 8.1–16.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 11.4% | 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 | 11.4% | 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 | 8.6% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.2%CMS range 3.0–11.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.81 | 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
CMS has not published payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours for this facility yet — this can happen for newer, hospital-based, or recently-certified homes. It can also mean the home simply did not file, which CMS does not distinguish in this data, so treat the gap as unexplained rather than benign. Staffing is one of the three parts of the CMS star rating; where it’s missing, weigh the independent health-inspection score most, and ask the facility directly about its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage.
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 · E2026-02-11 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — patternEnsure 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
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube flushes before and after medication administration for 1 (Resident #11) of 1 sampled resident with a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube (a feeding tube inserted through the abdomen into the stomach, commonly used for long-term nutrition, fluids, and medication delivery).Findings:Review of Resident #11's physician's orders dated 02/08/2026 revealed, in part, flush the feeding tube with the lowest volume necessary to clear the tube before and after administration unless a specific volume is ordered.Review of Elsevier Performance Manager Training for Medication Administration via Feeding Tubes revealed, in part, flush the feeding tube with a minimum of 15 milliliters of purified water before and after the administration of medications. Observation on 02/09/2026 at 12:02PM revealed S4Registered Nurse did not flush Resident #11's percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube before and after medication administration. Observation on 02/09/2026 at 4:54PM revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-02-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for 2 (Resident #5, Resident #11) of 2 sampled residents observed for infection control practices. Findings:Review of the Centers for Disease Control's 04/02/2024 article Implementation of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Use in Nursing Homes to Prevent Spread of Multidrug-resistant Organisms (MDROs), dated 04/02/2024, revealed, in part, personal protective equipment, which included the use of gowns and gloves, should be used during high-contact resident care activities that provided opportunities for the transfer of methicillin drug resistant organisms (bacteria or other germs that developed resistance to multiple antibiotics) to staff's hands and clothing. Further review revealed examples of high-contact resident care activities included device care, which included care of feeding tubes, and wound care. Review of the facility's Infection Control policy and procedure revealed, in part, the policy did not include a developed policy for the implementation of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-05 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
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 Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) Form (CMS-10123) was given to all Medicare beneficiaries who were discharged home with benefit days remaining, at least two days before the end of a Medicare covered Part A stay, for 3 (Resident #201, Resident #202, Resident #203) of 3 (Resident #201, Resident #202, Resident #203) sampled residents reviewed for beneficiary notification. Findings: Resident #201 Review of Resident #201's medical record revealed, in part, Resident #201 was admitted for Medicare Part A services on 09/03/2024, and was discharged home on [DATE]. Review of Resident #201's Notice of Medicare Non-coverage (NOMNC) form revealed, in part, Resident #201's last covered day of Medicare Part A services was on 09/20/2024. Further review revealed there was no notification date documented on the NOMNC form. Resident #202 Review of Resident #202's medical record revealed, in part, Resident #202 was admitted for Medicare Part A services…
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 · D2025-02-05 · tag F0729 — isolatedVerify 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) registry verification was completed prior to hire for 1 (S6Nursing Assistant [NA]) of 5 (S3CNA, S4CNA, S5NA, S6CNA, S7CNA) personnel records reviewed for registry verification. Findings: Review of S6NA's personnel record revealed a hire date of 05/20/2024. Further review revealed no documented evidence, and the facility did not present any documented evidence, a CNA registry check was obtained prior to hire for S6NA. In an interview on 02/05/2025 at 12:10PM S1Director indicated a CNA registry check was not obtained prior to hire for S6NA, as required.
- Potential for harm · D2025-02-05 · tag F0949 — failed to train staff on dementia and abuse — isolatedProvide behavior health training consistent with the requirements and as determined by a facility 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 interview and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a staff member received dementia trainings for 1 (S3Certified Nursing Assistant [CNA]) of 5 (S3CNA, S4CNA, S5Nursing Assistant [NA], S6CNA, S7CNA) personnel records reviewed for required trainings. Findings: Review of the facility's Skilled Nursing Facility assessment dated [DATE] revealed, in part, the facility had 31 residents with behavioral health needs, and serviced a population that was typically over [AGE] years old. Further review revealed CNAs were to receive trainings on Bathing and Dementia Care and Communicating with Residents with Dementia during orientation and/or annual competencies. Review of S3CNA's personnel record revealed, in part, no documented evidence, and the facility did not present any documented evidence, S3CNA received trainings on Bathing and Dementia Care and Communicating with Residents with Dementia during orientation and/or annual competencies. In an interview on 02/04/2025 at 4:25PM, S1Director indicated S3CNA…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-02-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews the facility failed to: 1. Ensure the registered nurse (RN) performed hand hygiene and applied gloves after contact with equipment and prior to touching and administering medication for 4 (Resident #56, Resident #57, Resident #58, and Resident #59) of 4 (Resident #56, Resident #57, Resident #58, and Resident #59) sampled residents observed during medication administration; 2. Ensure the RN and certified nursing assistant (CNA) performed hand hygiene and changed gloves appropriately as required during wound care for 1 (Resident #58) of 1 (Resident #58) sampled residents observed during wound care; and, 3.Ensure the licensed practical nurse (LPN) performed hand hygiene and applied gloves after contact with her uniform and equipment prior to performing blood glucose monitoring for 1 (Resident #56) of 1 (Resident #56) sampled residents observed during blood glucose monitoring. Findings: Review of the facility's Hand Hygiene policy and procedure revealed, in part: -wash hands with soap and water when hands are visibly dirty 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 · E2024-02-15 · tag F0943 — patternGive their staff education on dementia care, and what abuse, neglect, and exploitation are; and how to report abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility: 1. Failed to ensure staff were provided abuse and neglect training (S8Agency Registered Nurse (RN), S9Agency RN, and S10Agency RN); and 2. Failed to ensure staff were provided dementia management training (S6Certfied Nursing Assistant (CNA) and S11CNA). This deficient practice was identified for 5 (S6CNA, S8Agency RN, S9Agency RN, S10Agency RN, and S11CNA) of 8 (S6CNA, S8Agency RN, S9Agency RN, and S10Agency RN, S11CNA, S12Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), S13CNA, and S14CNA) personnel records reviewed. Findings: 1. Review of the facility's Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) schedule from 10/29/2023 through 12/09/2023 revealed, in part, S8Agency RN, S9Agency RN, and S10Agency RN worked at the facility as a Registered Nurse. Review of S8Agency RN's personnel file revealed no documented evidence and the provider did not present any documented evidence abuse and neglect training was completed since date of hire of 10/18/2023. Review of S9Agency RN's personnel file revealed no documented evidence and the provider did not present any…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-15 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure their policy and procedure included: 1. A process of screening employees to prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents; and, 2. A process for training employees on abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents. Findings: Review of the facility's Identifying and Reporting Allegations of Abuse/Neglect policy dated 08/28/2023 revealed no documented evidence and the facility did not present any documented evidence the policy included how the facility would perform screening of employees to prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and how employees would be trained on abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents. In an interview on 02/15/2024 at 3:00 p.m., S1Assistant [NAME] President of Nursing Services acknowledged the facility's policies did not identify how the facility would perform screening of employees to prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and how employees would be trained on abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and it should have.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-15 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications were locked and not available for use at a resident's bedside for 1 (Resident #56) of 4 (Resident #56, Resident #57, Resident #58, and Resident #59) sampled residents observed for medications left at the bedside. Findings: Review of the facility's Storage of Medications after Dispensing to Provider policy revealed, in part, medications should be stored in a safe and secure manner, and storage locations should provide a locking mechanism for safety and security of medications. Further review revealed all locking mechanisms should be utilized to assure medications were secure at all times, and medications should not be left unattended or at a patient's bedside. Review of Resident #56's January and February 2024 physician's orders revealed, in part, no documented evidence of an order for Resident #56 to have medications available for self-administration at the bedside. Review of Resident #56's record revealed no documented evidence and the facility did not present any documented evidence…
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 · B2024-02-15 · tag F0577 — patternAllow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to post the most recent survey results. Findings: Review of the facility's survey history revealed the last survey conducted was the recertification survey with an exit date of 11/09/2022. Observation of the facility's past survey results on 02/12/2024 at 11:00 a.m. revealed the last survey results available for review were dated 11/09/2021 for the recertification survey. Observation of the facility's past survey results on 02/12/2024 at 2:00 p.m. revealed the last survey results available for review were dated 11/09/2021 for the recertification survey. Observation of the facility's past survey results on 02/14/2024 at 11:37 a.m. revealed the last survey results available for review were dated 11/09/2021 for the recertification survey. Observation of the facility's past survey results on 02/14/2024 at 12:59 p.m. revealed the last survey results available for review were dated 11/09/2021 for the recertification survey. In an interview on 02/14/2024 at 12:59 p.m., S1Assistant [NAME] President of Nursing…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TERREBONNE PARISH HOSPITAL SERVICE DISTRICT #1 | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 07/11/1985 |
| ADAMS, BEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/12/2020 |
| ALEXANDER, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/12/2015 |
| BARKER, ANGELIQUE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/02/2013 |
| BERGERON, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/29/2016 |
| CHAUVIN, KERRY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/12/2020 |
| EUES, EARL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/01/2019 |
| FAKIER, MIKE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 10/09/2008 |
| MAGEE, TANNER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/29/2022 |
| MORRISON, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 05/15/2024 |
| PICKETT, BERNADETTE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/28/2015 |
| WILLIAMS, ARLANDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/29/2022 |
| MCKEE, NICOLE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2018 |
| PEOPLES, PHYLLIS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/24/2003 |
| YEATES, FRANCES | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/09/2008 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 15 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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.
What families pay in LA
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Louisiana Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 195185. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-11, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.