Sabine Retirement and Rehab Center
965 Fisher Road, Many, LA 71449 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 116 certified beds · (318) 590-0200 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- 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
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $17,425 in federal fines (most recent 2025-07-09)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 23.1% | 17.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 10.2% | 5.2% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.5% | 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 | 6.1% | 2.3% | 6.5% | typical |
| 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 | 6.4% | 3.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 28.0% | 17.9% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.9% | 23.2% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.3% | 5.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 15.9% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.1% | 22.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 5.6% | 3.1% | 1.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 76.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.1% | 28.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.3% | 14.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.88 | 2.56 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.93 | 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.
52.3% 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 95 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 87.7% 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 57 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 0.16 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 13% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 52.3%CMS range 40.0–61.5 | 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 | 14.7%CMS range 11.3–18.8 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than 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 | 87.7% | 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 | 93.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 66.7% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.2% | 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 | 4.8% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.7%CMS range 5.6–14.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.06 | 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 116 beds and averages 102.8 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 13 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.28 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.11 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.96 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.63 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.54 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.11 to 0.10 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2023-09-13 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision to prevent incidents and accidents for 1 of 1 sampled resident (#230) reviewed for accidents. The deficient practice resulted in an actual harm situation for Resident # 230 that began on 10/31/2022 at 10:00 p.m., when Resident #230 was not provided 1:1 supervision on the 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. shift. Resident #230, who was on Fall Precautions, fell 4 times on the day shift on 10/31/2022, and was ordered 1:1 supervision on 10/31/2022 at 12:31 p.m. after the 3rd fall. The CNA who provided care to Resident #230 on the 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. shift on 10/31/2022, did not provide 1:1 supervision of Resident #230 as ordered, and Resident #230 was found at 11:45 p.m. on the floor in her room on her stomach. Resident #230 was transferred to the emergency room of a local hospital, and diagnosed with an Acute Compression Fracture of T12 and L2 vertebra, Contusions, and a Hematoma to her left eye. Findings:…
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 · Ddisputed · IDR2026-06-16 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to protect a resident's right to privacy and confidentiality of personal and medical records by failing to ensure 1 (Resident #4) of 4 sampled resident's name, medical appointment and diagnosis were not visible in a public area within the facility. Findings:Review of a facility policy titled Resident Rights, with no review date read in part.8. Privacy and confidentiality. The resident has a right to personal privacy and confidentiality of his or her personal medical records.b. The resident has a right to secure and confidential personal and medical records.Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed an admit date of 09/24/20215, with diagnoses that included in part.Malignant Neoplasm of Prostate, Vascular Dementia, and Other Sequelae Following Unspecified Cerebrovascular Disease.Review of a Radiation Oncology Consultation note date 06/01/2026 read in part.Chief Complaint: I am here to discuss radiation for my Prostate Cancer. Observation on 06/16/2026 at 10:20 a.m. of nurses' station located at the front…
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 · E2026-01-14 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 106 residents who resided in the facility. The facility failed to:Ensure expired and unlabeled medications were not available for administration to residents in 1 (Med Room B) of 2 medication rooms; andEnsure expired medications and supplies were not available for administration to residents in 2 (Med Cart B and Med Cart E) of 5 medication carts. Findings:Review of a facility policy on 01/13/2026 at 10:40 a.m. titled, Pharmacy Services with a revision date of 01/05/2025 revealed the following in part .It is the policy of this facility to ensure that pharmaceutical services, whether employed by the facility or under an agreement, are provided to meet the needs of each resident, are consistent with state and federal requirements, and reflect current standards of practice. Review of an undated facility policy on 01/13/2026 at 10:10 a.m. titled,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-14 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
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 review the facility failed to make a prompt effort to resolve grievances filed by a resident's representative, for 1 (Resident #3) of 27 sampled residents.Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled Grievances/Complaints, with no review date, revealed in part.1. Any resident, his or her representative (sponsor), family member, or appointed advocate may file a grievance or complaint to the facility.3. Grievances and/or complaints may be submitted orally or in writing and may be filed anonymously. 4. Upon receipt of a grievance and/or complaint, the grievance official will ensure prompt investigation and resolution of the allegations; and ensure that immediate action is taken if necessary to prevent further potential violations of any resident rights while the allegation is under investigation.5. The administrator will review the grievance.6. The administrator will review the findings with the person investigating the complaint to determine what corrective actions, if any, need…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-14 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely 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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure an allegation of resident to resident physical abuse was reported to the State Survey Agency immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the resident to resident physical abuse was discovered for Resident #55. Total sample size 27. Findings:Review of the facility's undated policy titled Abuse Prevention and Investigation read in part.Residents have the right to be free from verbal, sexual, physical, and mental abuse. Policy Interpretation and Implementation:1. The facility defines abuse as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. Examples of physical abuse include: hitting, slapping, pinching, and kicking. 16. Reporting:a. All alleged violations of abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property will be reported immediately, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made if the alleged violation involves abuse. Resident # 55 Review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-14 · 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
F656Based on interview and record review the facility failed to develop/implement a Person-Centered Care plan for 1 (Resident #78) of 27 sampled residents to include a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG tube) and appropriate nursing interventions.Findings: Review of Resident #78's medical record revealed an admit date of 10/07/2025 with diagnoses that included in part.Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following Cerebral Infarction Affecting Left Non-Dominant Side, Mild Protein-Calorie Malnutrition, Type II Diabetes Mellitus, Dysphagia following Cerebral Infarction, and Cognitive Communication Deficit.Review of Resident #78's Significant Change MDS with and ARD of 11/21/2025 revealed a BIMS score of 4 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The MDS revealed Resident #1 was dependent for all ADL's. The MDS revealed Resident #78 was coded for holding food in mouth/cheeks or residual food in mouth after meals.Observation on 01/12/2026 at 9:50 a.m. revealed Resident #78 lying in bed. Enteral feeding and water infusing via pump.Review of Resident #78's 01/2026 physician orders…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-14 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 review the facility failed to ensure that each resident who were unable to carry out ADL's (Activities of Daily Living) received necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene. The facility failed to provide a shower/bath to dependent residents for 1 (Resident #3) of 27 sampled resident.Findings:Review of the facility's policy titled Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) with no review date, revealed in part.Policy: The facility will, based on the resident's comprehensive assessment and consistent with the resident's needs and choices, ensure a resident's abilities in ADL's do not deteriorate unless deterioration is unavoidable.Care and services will be provided for the following activities of daily living:1. Bathing, dressing, grooming and oral care.Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines:3. A resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living will receive the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral…
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 before2026-01-14 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to ensure the accurate acquiring and administration of a prescribed medication (Amiodarone) to meet the needs of Resident #37. Total Sample size 27. Findings:Review of the facility's undated policy titled Medications-Administering read in part.Medications shall be administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. Review of Resident #37 's medical record revealed an admit date of 06/27/2025 with diagnoses that included in part: Chronic Atrial Fibrillation, Chronic Combined Systolic and Diastolic Heart Failure, Hyperlipidemia, Hypertension, Atherosclerotic Heart Disease of Native Coronary Artery without Angina Pectoris, Hypertensive Heart Disease. Review of Resident #37's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an ARD of 10/30/2025 revealed Resident #37 had a BIMS score of 13, indicating intact cognition. Resident #37 was independent/ required minimal assistance with activities of daily living. Review of Resident #37's Physician Orders for January 2026 revealed in part. Amiodarone HCl oral…
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 · E2024-10-09 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — patternDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure garbage was disposed properly. Findings: Review of the non-dated facility policy titled Trash read in part .All waste must be placed in sealed containers .All garbage and trash will be placed in a dumpster in a convenient area near the facility . Observation on 10/07/2024 at 8:54 a.m. accompanied by S2 Dietary Manager revealed 5 large trash bags on the ground next to the facility dumpsters. Interview on 10/07/2024 at the time of the observations with S2 Dietary Manager, confirmed that the trash bags should have been placed in the dumpsters and not left on the ground.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-09 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Nurse Practitioner documented a clinical rationale for a denial of a dose reduction for 1 (#56) of 5 (#2, #23, #28, #56, #57) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility failed to ensure the Nurse Practitioner documented a clinical rationale for not reducing psychoactive medications recommended for gradual dose reduction. Findings: Review of Resident #56's clinical record revealed an admission date of 06/15/2022 with a Re-entry date of 05/25/2023 with diagnosis that included Alzheimer's Disease, Paranoid Schizophrenia, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Unspecified Dementia Unspecified Severity with Other Behavioral Disturbance, Insomnia, Major Depressive Disorder, Extrapyramidal and Movement Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder Bipolar Type Review of Resident #56's Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 12/11/2024 revealed a BIMS score of 99, severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #56's Physician's Orders for October 2024 revealed the following: Trazodone 75mg at Bedtime Seroquel 100mg every morning…
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 · D2024-10-09 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety by failing to ensure food items were stored in the refrigerator after opening. Findings: Review of the non-dated facility policy titled Storage: Refrigerator read in part . Keep all perishable foods below 41 degrees F (7 degrees C). Observation of the dry storage area in the kitchen on 10/07/2024 at 8:40 a.m. accompanied by S2 Dietary Manager revealed an open bottle of lemon juice with a hand written date of 09/15/2024, and a non-dated open bottle of teriyaki sauce. Review of the manufacture labels on the lemon juice and teriyaki sauce indicated to Refrigerate after opening. Interview on 10/07/2024 at the time of the observations with S2 Dietary Manager, confirmed that the lemon juice and teriyaki sauce should have been refrigerated after it was opened.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-13 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the residents' status during the observation period for 1 (Resident #9) of 1 sampled resident for hospice. Findings: Review of Resident #9's clinical record revealed Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #9 had diagnoses that included Hypertensive Heart Disease with Heart Failure, Adult Failure to Thrive, Mild Protein Calorie Malnutrition, Muscle Wasting and Atrophy, and Difficulty Walking. Review of Resident #9's Physician Orders revealed in part . 06/01/2023 Admit to hospice. Review of Resident #9's Significant Change MDS Assessment with an ARD 06/09/2023 indicated Resident #9 was receiving dialysis while a resident. Review of the Assessment did not reveal Resident #9 was receiving hospice services. Review of Resident #9's May 2023 and June 2023 Physician orders revealed no orders for dialysis. Interview on 09/11/2023 at 2:55 p.m. with Resident #9 revealed she was not on dialysis.…
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 · D2023-09-13 · tag F0642 — isolatedEnsure a qualified health professional conducts resident assessments.
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 review the facility failed to ensure each resident's assessment will be coordinated by and certified as complete by a registered nurse for 1 (#64) of 1 resident sampled for MDS record over 120 days old. The facility failed to ensure Resident #64's MDS Correction Request was signed by a registered nurse. Findings: Review of an MDS assessment transmission report revealed Resident #64's 05/05/2023 Significant Change Assessment had been attested on [DATE]. Review of the Resident #64's MDS Correction Request form dated 08/17/2023 revealed a modification had been requested due to an item coding error. Review also revealed the signature box designated as RN Assessment Coordinator Attestation of Completion, had been electronically signed by S4 LPN/MDS Coordinator. Interview on 09/12/2023 at 4:00 p.m. with S2 DON and S4 LPN/MDS Coordinator confirmed the correction request/attestation of completion for Resident #64's Significant Change Assessment with target date 05/05/2023 had not been…
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 · D2023-09-13 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that pain management was provided to residents who require such services, consistent with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 (Resident #231) of 1 (Resident #231) residents sampled for pain. The facility failed to ensure Resident #231 who displayed verbal and/or nonverbal indicators of pain received the ordered interventions to alleviate severe pain. Findings: Review of the facility policy titled, Pain Management revealed in part Optimum and effective pain management is only successful through a systematic and total team effort. Continual monitoring, assessment and evaluation, resident education and utilization of scheduled medications and modalities is crucial to the success of each resident's pain management plan. Review of Resident #231's clinical record revealed an admit date of 09/04/2021. Review of the clinical record also revealed Resident #231 had diagnoses that included Dorsalgia, Osteoarthritis, Polyneuropathy, Spinal Stenosis, and Pain.…
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 before2023-09-13 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to ensure procedures that assure accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing and administration of medications to meet the needs of each resident. The facility failed to provide medications and/or biologicals to meet the needs of residents for 1 (Resident #231) of 1 residents sampled. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Orders-Medication revealed in part . Drugs and biologicals that are required to be refilled must be reordered from the issuing pharmacy not less than (3) days prior to the last dosage being administered to ensure that refills are readily available. Interview on 09/11/2023 at 12:44 p.m. with Resident #231 revealed he was not feeling well. Resident #231 stated his back was hurting and grimaced while motioning to his lower back. Resident #231 stated he normally took medication for his back pain every morning but had not taken any this morning because the nurse told him he was out of medicine. Interview on 09/11/2023 at 12:21 p.m. with S3 LPN 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.
“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.
“Disputed” is CMS’s own flag, not our reading: the CMS deficiency file records whether the home has formally contested a citation, and we reproduce that. IDR is Informal Dispute Resolution, run by the state survey agency that wrote the citation; IIDR is Independent Informal Dispute Resolution, a separate process before an outside entity, available when CMS has proposed a civil money penalty. They are different processes and we mark them differently. Two things to hold at once. A disputed citation is still a citation — it was written by a surveyor, it stands on the record unless and until it is changed, and we neither hide it nor discount it. And we cannot tell you how the dispute came out: CMS publishes that a citation is under dispute, not the outcome, so a tag marked here may since have been upheld, reduced, or deleted, and an unmarked tag may have been disputed and resolved before this file was cut. Ask the home what it disputed and why — it is entitled to tell you, and the answer is often the most informative thing on this page.
- 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
$17,425 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $9,113 — penalty dated 2025-07-09
- $8,312 — penalty dated 2023-09-13
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to RIGHTCARE HEALTH SERVICES — 13 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 1.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
The other 12 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| REVOCABLE TRUST OF ROY BUSH BRIDGES AND JUDY KAYE WINN BRIDGES | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 11% | since 01/01/2022 |
| THE VERNICE C WRIGHT IRREVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 22% | since 09/01/2018 |
| WILLIE JACKSON CORLEY, JR ESTATE | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 11% | since 01/01/2021 |
| ABINGTON, LEONARD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | 11% | since 04/25/1981 |
| DAVIS, ERIC | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 6% | since 01/01/2020 |
| STEVENS, VIKKI | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 6% | since 01/01/2020 |
| CA DAVIS ENTERPRISES LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 11/01/2023 |
| BRIDGES, ROY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 6% | since 01/01/2022 |
| DAVIS, CRAIG | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | 6% | since 01/01/2020 |
| ROOS, ELLA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 6% | since 01/01/2022 |
| THURMAN, ROBIN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 6% | since 09/01/2018 |
| WRIGHT, CANDACE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 6% | since 09/01/2018 |
| WRIGHT, MICHAEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 6% | since 09/01/2018 |
| SANDERS, JACK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/07/2001 |
| RIGHTCARE HEALTH SERVICES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/14/2025 |
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.
5 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 $784K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% 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 195555. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-14, 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.