Avalon Place
4385 Old Sterlington Road, Monroe, LA 71203 · For profit - Partnership · 113 certified beds · (318) 322-2000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (31) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
- about 19% 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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 27.5% | 17.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.4% | 5.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 1.2% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.1% | 2.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 2.3% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 2.6% | 3.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 23.6% | 17.9% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.2% | 23.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.9% | 94.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.8% | 5.6% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 10.5% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 39.0% | 22.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 9.0% | 3.1% | 1.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 28.3% | 76.3% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 42.6% | 28.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.2% | 14.8% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.73 | 2.56 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 5.68 | 2.74 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
51.6% 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 51 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 56.2% 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 32 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 0.29 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 44% 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 | 51.6%CMS range 37.8–62.1 | 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 7.5–16.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 56.2% | 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 | 50.0% | 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 | 53.1% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 87.9% | 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 | 1.7% | 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 | 1.7% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.2%CMS range 3.8–12.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.25 | 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 113 beds and averages 72.5 residents a day — about 64% occupied, or roughly 40 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.45 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.17 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.17 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.09 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.60 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.17 to 0.15 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 50% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
31 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 21 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · E2025-12-03 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — patternReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received reasonable accommodation of needs in accordance with preferences for 1(#28) of 1 sampled residents reviewed for accommodation of needs by failing to provide a manual wheelchair for Resident #28 for mobility when the resident's electric scooter was not functioning. Findings: Record review revealed Resident #28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #28 had diagnoses that included diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and acquired absence of left leg above the knee. Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 15 which indicated no cognitive impairment. Review of an annual MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #28 used an electric scooter or manual wheelchair for mobility.On 12/01/2025 at 3:16 p.m., an observation and interview were conducted in Resident #28`s room. An electric scooter was observed in the room. Resident #28 reported the electric scooter did not have a working battery and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-12-03 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure accuracy of the MDS assessment for 2 (#76 and #77) of 3 sampled residents reviewed.Findings:Resident #76 Review of Resident #76's record revealed an admission date of 11/10/2025 with diagnoses including atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary without angina pectoris, polyneuropathy, chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure, unspecified dementia unspecified severity with other behavioral disturbance, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of Resident #76's MDS assessments revealed an admission/Medicare 5 day MDS assessment with an ARD of 11/17/2025. Further review of the MDS revealed a BIMS score of 11 indicating moderate cognitive impairment and the resident's current tobacco use was marked as no. Review of Resident #76's smoking assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was a safe smoker and her cigarettes and lighter are kept at the nurse's station. Review of Resident #76's current care plan 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 · E2025-12-03 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — patternEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview the facility failed to provide nursing staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident for 2 (#55 & #77) sampled residents. The facility failed to ensure: 1) Nursing staff had a documented assessment or rationale for Resident #55 having an x-ray of her foot in the medical record prior to the x-ray being completed 2) Nursing staff completed and recorded an assessment for Resident #77 on 06/17/2025 when she complained of abdominal pain before being transferred to a local hospital on [DATE] for treatment of the abdominal pain.Findings:Resident #55 Review of the record for Resident #55 revealed diagnoses in part of unspecified sequelae of cerebral infarction, biliary cirrhosis, heart failure, diabetes, and gout. Review of Resident #55's, most recent, MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident's BIMS…
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 before2025-12-03 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to inform the resident's physician and /or the resident's representative when a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status or a decision to transfer or discharge a resident from the facility. The facility failed to:1.) notify the resident's physician and the resident's representative of a change in condition on 09/26/2025 when Resident #72 was transferred to the emergency room, and2.) notify the resident's physician of a change in condition for Resident #77. Findings: Resident #72 Review of Resident #72's record revealed and admission date of 09/02/2025 with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, chronic atrial fibrillation, idiopathic gout right knee, and hypertension. Review of Resident #72's MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a discharge return anticipated MDS was completed. Review of the record revealed Resident #72 was transferred and admitted to the hospital on…
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 · D2025-12-03 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of 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 record reviews and interviews, the provider failed to ensure the MDS assessments were transmitted to the state in a timely manner for 1 (#2) of 3 sampled residents reviewed.Findings:Review of Resident #2's record revealed an admission date of 05/06/2025.Review of Resident #2's MDS assessments revealed a significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE]. Further review of the MDS history revealed this MDS was not transmitted to the state until 12/03/2025 (during the survey).An interview on 12/03/2025 at 10:00 a.m. with S5ADON revealed the significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #2 was not transmitted to the state until 12/03/2025. S5ADON reported she was not responsible for transmission of the MDS assessments. An interview on 12/03/2025 at 10:10 a.m. with S4ADON confirmed she was responsible for transmitting all of the MDS assessments for the facility into the state system. S4ADON confirmed she failed to transmit Resident #2's significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE] in a timely…
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 before2025-12-03 · 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
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive plan of care was developed for 1 (#20) of 1 resident that developed COVID-19. Findings:Review of the record for Resident 20 revealed admitting diagnoses in part of Polyosteoarthritis, Seborrheic Dermatitis, Major Depressive Disorder, Hypertension, History of colon cancer with colostomy placement and Atrial Fibrillation.Review of the Physician orders revealed an order for COVID test as needed and orders dated 11/07/2025 for COVID and FLU swab. Review of the laboratory results for the Respiratory Life Panel with COVID 19 and Influenza A and B testing with results dated 11/10/2025 revealed Resident 20 tested positive for COVID 19. Further review of the Physician orders dated 11/11/2025 revealed orders for Complete Blood Count (CBC), Complete Metabolic Panel (CMP), D-dimer 2 times per week for 3 weeks, Chest Xray 2 times per week for 3 weeks, Vitamin C 1000 milligrams by mouth twice a day for 2 weeks, Zinc Sulfate 220 milligrams by mouth every day for 2 weeks, Augmentin 875/125 milligrams by mouth twice a…
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 · D2025-12-03 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive plan of care for 1 (#77) of 2 (#20, #77) reviewed for colostomy care. Findings:Review of the facility's Colostomy/Ileostomy Care Policy dated 01/15/2025 revealed, in part:PurposeThe purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines that will aid in preventing exposure of the resident's skin to fecal matterDocumentationThe following information should be recorded in the resident's medical record1. The date and time the colostomy/ileostomy care was provided2. The name and title of the individual(s) who provided the colostomy/ileostomy care3. Any breaks in resident's skin, signs of infection (purulent discharge, pain, redness, swelling, temperature), or excoriation of the skin4. How the resident tolerated the procedure5. If the resident refused the procedure, the reason(s) why and the intervention taken6. The signature and title 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 · Dcited before2024-12-04 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure notifications of changes in resident conditions were made, as evidenced by the facility failing to ensure the resident's physician was notified of an incident for 1 (#1) of 3 (#1, #2, and #4) residents reviewed for notification of change. Findings: Review of the facility's Change in a Resident's Condition or Status Policy undated revealed: Policy Statement Our facility shall promptly notify the resident, his or her Attending Physician, and representative (sponsor) of changes in the resident's medical/mental condition and/or status (e.g., changes in level of care, billing/payments, resident rights, etc). Review of the medical record for resident #1 revealed an admission date of 10/24/2024 with diagnoses including unspecified dementia with other behavioral disturbance, depression, and hypothyroidism. Review of the resident #1's medical record revealed no documentation of an Admit Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) due to the resident was…
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 · E2024-10-16 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — patternProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident with pressure ulcers recieved the necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing for 2 (#6 and #52) of 5 (#5, #6, #18, #52, and #125) residents investigated for pressure ulcers. The facility failed to ensure that a pressure relieving device was implemented for resident #52, who currently had a new, unidentified pressure to her left heel. Findings: Resident #6 Review of the medical record revealed resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review revealed her diagnoses included in part, dementia without behavioral disturbance and a history of pressure ulcers. Review of the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed resident #6 had a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 09. A score of 08-12 indicated resident #6 had moderate cognitive impaired with daily…
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 · E2024-10-16 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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 observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 2 (#25 and #70) of 9 (#5, #12, #17, #25, #38, #52, #69, #70 and #175) residents reviewed for accident hazards. The facility failed to 1) complete an Incident/Accident report after residents #25 and #70 had an incident, and 2) assess resident #70 to determine if the lap tray was appropriate after he slid under the lap tray. Findings: Resident #70 Review of the medical record for resident #70 revealed an admission date of 07/24/2024 with diagnoses of edema, depression, muscle weakness, seizures, hypertension and lack of coordination. Review of the physician's orders dated 10/05/2024 for resident #70 revealed an order to use a geri chair when the resident was out of the bed. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed resident #70 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 2 which indicated…
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.
Show the remaining 21 citations
- Potential for harm · E2024-10-16 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — patternProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
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 a resident who required dialysis received services consistent with professional standards of practice by failing to ensure fluid restrictions were followed and implemented as ordered for 1 (#3) of 1 sampled residents who were reviewed for dialysis. Findings: Review of the medical record revealed resident #3 was admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included end stage renal disease, hypertensive heart disease and unspecified psychosis. Review of the October 2024 physician orders revealed the resident received dialysis on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and had a 1000 cc fluid restriction. There was no documentation in the medical record that resident #3's fluid intake was being monitored. On 10/15/2024 at 1:55 p.m., interview with S5Certified Nurse Aid (CNA) revealed she worked in the memory care unit where resident #3 resided. S5CNA reported they did not keep a fluid intake log for resident #3. On 10/25/2024 at 2:15 p.m., interview with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-10-16 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were assessed for the risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to the installation of bed rails for 4 (#5, #12, #17, and #38) of 5 (#5, #12, #17, #38 and #52) residents reviewed for bed rails. Findings: Review of the facility's undated Physical Restraints, Side Rails policy revealed: Purpose The purposes of these guidelines are to ensure the safe use of side rails as resident mobility aids and to prohibit the use of side rails as restraints unless necessary to treat a resident's medical symptoms. General Guidelines 3. As assessment will be made to determine the resident's symptoms, risk of entrapment and reason for using side rails, when used for mobility or transfer, an assessment will include a review of the resident's: a. Bed mobility; b. Ability to change positions, transfer to and from bed or chair, and to stand and toilet; c. Risk of entrapment from the use of side rails; and d. That the bed's dimensions are…
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 · E2024-10-16 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations of medication administration, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that it was free from a medication error rate of 5% or greater. The facility had a 10.71% medication error rate with 3 medication errors out of 28 opportunities. Findings: Resident #43 An observation of the medication administration for resident #43 on 10/15/2024 at 8:33 a.m. with S4Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) revealed S4LPN administered Furosemide 20 milligrams (mg) 1 tablet by mouth and administered Gabapentin 100 mg 1 capsule by mouth. Review of the October 2024 Physician's orders for resident #43 revealed the following orders: 02/13/2024 Gabapentin 300 mg capsule by mouth 2 times per day (BID) at 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m; and 09/23/2024 Furosemide 40 mg tablet: take 1 tablet by mouth (40 milligrams total dose) at 8:00 a.m. every Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday. An interview on 10/15/2024 at 1:30 p.m. with S2Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) confirmed that S4LPN should have administered Furosemide 40 mg by mouth and Gabapentin 300 mg by mouth to resident #43…
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 · E2024-10-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to implement policies and procedures for enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for 3 (#18, #28, and #35) of 3 (#18, #28, and #35) residents reviewed for enhanced barrier precautions. Findings: Review of the Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) policy and procedure dated 04/01/2024 revealed the following in part: Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) refers to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employ targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities. EBP are indicated for residents with any of the following: -colonization with a Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)- targeted Multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) when Contact Precautions do not otherwise apply; or -wounds and/or indwelling medical devices even if the resident is not known to be infected or colonized with MDRO. Indwelling medical devices examples include central lines, urinary…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-16 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure notifications of changes in resident conditions were made, as evidenced by the facility failing to ensure 1) the resident's representative was notified after resident #69 had a fall, and 2) staff notified the nurse when resident #6 was found to have bruises for 2 (#6 and #69) of 2 residents reviewed for notification of change. Findings: Review of the facility's Change in a Resident's Condition or Status Policy undated revealed: Policy Statement Our facility shall promptly notify the resident, his or her Attending Physician, and representative (sponsor) of changes in the resident's medical/mental condition and/or status (e.g., changes in level of care, billing/payments, resident rights, etc). Resident #69 Review of the medical record for resident #69 revealed an admission date of 06/25/2024 with diagnoses including pulmonary edema, hypertension, dementia, muscle weakness, and cerebral infarction. Review of the current Minimum Data Set (MDS)…
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 · D2024-10-16 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical restraints imposed for the purpose of discipline or convenience for 3 (#25, #52 and #70) of 3 residents reviewed for restraints. The facility failed to have documented evidence of monitoring the release of the lap trays for residents #25, #52 and #70 and failed to have physician orders for the lap trays for residents #25 and #70. Findings: Review of the facility's Use of Restraints policy and procedure, revised December 2007, revealed the following, in part: Policy Interpretation and Implementation 2. The definition of a restraint is based on the functional status of the resident and not the device. If the resident cannot remove a device in the same manner in which staff applied it given that resident's physical condition (i.e., side rails put back down, rather than climbed over), and this restricts his/her typical ability to change position or place, that device is considered a restraint. 3.…
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 · D2024-10-16 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representative(s) of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing and send a copy of the notice to a representative at the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman for 1 (#12) of 1 (#12) reviewed for hospitalizations. Findings: Review of the Emergency Transfer Logs for June 2024 and July 2024 revealed resident #12 was discharged to the hospital on the dates of 06/23/2024 and 07/17/2024. Further review revealed there was no documented evidence of the Ombudsman being notified of resident #12 being transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and 07/17/2024. On 10/16/2024 at 5:12 p.m., during a telephone interview with the local Ombudsman assigned to the nursing facility, she confirmed that she had not been notified of resident #12's transfers to the hospital on the dates of 06/23/2024 and 07/17/2024. On 10/16/2024 at approximately 5:45 p.m., S7Corporate Administrator and S1Administrator were…
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 · D2024-10-16 · tag F0638 — isolatedAssure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record reviews and interview, the facility failed to assess residents using the quarterly review instrument specified by the State and approved by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) not less frequently than once every 3 months for 2 (#25 and #27) of 2 residents sampled for Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments. Findings: Resident #25 Review of resident #25's record revealed an admission date of 09/01/2017. Further review of the record revealed the resident's last Quarterly MDS Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/25/2024 and no documented Quarterly MDS for resident #25. Resident #27 Review of resident #27's record revealed an admission date of 08/31/2021. Further review of the record revealed the resident's last Quarterly MDS Assessment with ARD of 06/04/2024 and no documented Quarterly MDS for resident #27. An interview on 10/16/2024 at 7:45 a.m. with S2Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) confirmed that the Quarterly MDS Assessments for resident #25 and resident #27 were not completed within 3 months of the previous Quarterly MDS Assessments.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-16 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 (#72) of 3 (#72, 73, 74) residents selected for closed record reviews. Findings: Review of the discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for resident #72 revealed the resident was discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. Review of the nurse's notes revealed resident #72 was discharged to home. On 10/16/2024 at 4:05 p.m., an interview with S2Assistant Director or Nursing confirmed the resident was discharged home. On 10/16/24 at 4:15 p.m., an interview with S6Licensed Practical Nurse confirmed the MDS incorrectly indicated resident #72 was discharged to the hospital rather than to home.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-16 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the resident's needs by not having documentation of the character of urine every shift for 1 (#18) of 1 residents reviewed for urinary catheters. Findings: Review of the Catheter Care Urinary Policy and Procedure updated 01/12/2024 revealed the following in part: Documentation The following information should be recorded in the resident's medical record: 1. Date and time catheter care was given. 2. The name and title of the individual giving the catheter care. 3. All assessment data obtained when giving catheter care. 4. Character of urine such as color (straw-colored, dark, or red), clarity (cloudy, solid particles, or blood), and odor. Review of resident #18's medical record revealed an admission date of 09/03/2024 with diagnoses including urinary retention, fibromyalgia, hypertension, paroxysmal atrial…
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 · D2024-10-16 · 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 observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good personal hygiene for 1 (#52) of 5 (#6, #28, #30, #52, and #67) residents investigated for activities of daily living. The facility failed to ensure resident #52's fingernails were kept trimmed. Findings: Review of the Care of Fingernails/Toenails Policy (Undated), included the following, in part: General Guidelines: 1. Nail care includes daily cleaning and regular trimming. Documentation: The following information should be recorded in the resident's medical record: 1. The date and time that nail care was given 2. The name and title of the individual(s) who administered the nail care 3. The condition of the resident's nails and nail bed, including: a. Redness or irritation of skin of hands and feet 6. If the resident refused the treatment, the reason(s) why and the intervention taken 7. The signature and title of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-16 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident with limited range of motion receives appropriate treament and services to increase range of motion and /or to prevent further decrease in range of motion for 1 (#52) of 1 residents reviewed for Position/Mobility. The facility failed to ensure hand rolls were provided for resident #52's hand contractures. Findings: Review of the medical record revealed resident #52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia without behavioral disturbance, schizophrenia, mood affective disorder, anxiety disorder, and pseudobulbar affect. Review of the Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed resident #52 had a documented brief interview for mental status score of 99 which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment with daily decision making skills. Further review of the MDS revealed that resident #52 had limitation in range of motion to her upper…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-16 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident's medication regimen was free from unnecessary medications by failing to monitor edema for a resident who received a diuretic for 1 (#17) of 5 (#17, #35, #38, #52, and #68) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings: Review of the medical record for resident #17 revealed an admit date of 08/26/2022 with diagnoses including depression, hypotension, edema, hypokalemia, muscle weakness and anemia. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed resident #17's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 15 which indicated intact cognition for daily decision making. Resident #17 required assistance with activities of daily living. Review of the current care plan revealed the resident had the potential for hypertension /hypotension related to medication use. The interventions were to monitor blood pressure, administer medications as ordered and obtain labs and diagnostic tests as ordered.…
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 · E2023-10-11 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — patternEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the pharmacist must report any irregularities to the attending physician and the facility's medical director and director of nursing for 5 (#4, #49, #57, #80 and #82) of 6 (#4, #7, #49, #57, #80, and #82) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The pharmacist failed to address no monitoring for side effects for residents #4, #49, #57, #80 and #82 while receiving psychotropic medications. Findings: Resident #4 Review of the Facility's Behavioral Assessment, Intervention and Monitoring Policy revealed in part: The nursing staff and the physician will monitor for side effects and complications related to psychoactive medications; for example, lethargy, abnormal involuntary movements, anorexia, and or recurrent falling. Review of the facility's Pharmacy Services: Medication Regimen Review (MRR) Policy and Procedure revealed in part: 5. The MRR involves a thorough review of the resident's medical record to prevent, identify, report and…
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 before2023-10-11 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — patternEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs for 2 (#4 and #80) of 6 (#4, #7, #49, #57, #80, and #82) sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility failed to monitor resident #80 for edema while receiving a diuretic and failed to monitor lab for resident #4 while taking Keppra and Divalproex. Findings: Resident #4 Review of the record for resident #4 revealed an admission date of 06/24/2022 with diagnoses including other seizures, bipolar disorder, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, depression, unspecified dementia, blindness both eyes, and metabolic encephalopathy. Review of the current Physician's Orders for resident #4 revealed the following: 08/29/2022- Divalproex Sodium DR 250 milligram tablet give 1 tablet by mouth 3 times per day (seizures) 09/02/2022- Keppra 500 milligram tablet give 1 tablet by mouth 2 times per day (seizures) Further review of the Physician's Orders revealed no order for monitoring…
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 · E2023-10-11 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews the facility failed to ensure that each resident was free from unnecessary medication use for 5 (#4, #49, #57, #80 and #82) of 6 (#4, #7, #49, #57, #80, and #82) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility failed to monitor side effects for residents #4, #49, #57, #80 and #82 that received psychotropic medications. Findings Resident #82 Review of the Facility's Behavioral Assessment, Intervention and Monitoring Policy revealed in part: The nursing staff and the physician will monitor for side effects and complications related to psychoactive medications; for example, lethargy, abnormal involuntary movements, anorexia, and or recurrent falling. Review of the medical record for resident #82 revealed an admission date of 04/27/2023 with diagnoses including vascular dementia, encephapathy, hypertension, depression, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease, hyperlipidemia, and hypothyroidism. Review of the current Physician's Orders for resident #82 revealed an order…
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 · E2023-10-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance wtih professional standards for food service safety by storing resident and staff's personal belonging in the kitchen food preparation and supply storage areas. Findings: During a tour of the kitchen on 10/09/2023 at 8:15 a.m., an observation revealed one large rolling cart that was located near to 7DM (Dietary Manager's) office. Observation of the inside of the cart revealed there a Christmas [NAME], 3 individual packages of table clothes, one thirty ounce bottle of old spice body wash, three bars of old spice soap, one ten ounce bottle of men's care exfoliating deep cleanser, and one seven ounce can of equate shaving gel. Further observation revealed one pair of tennis shoes and one cell phone that were sitting the tops of storage containers that was located in a small section of the kitchen and was designated supplies for food services. S7DM confirmed the items should not have been strored 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 · E2023-10-11 · tag F0868 — patternHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to coordinate and evaluate activities under the Quality Assessment and Assurance QAA / Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program, such as identifying issues with respect to which quality assessment and assurance activities, including performance improvement projects required under the QAPI program, are necessary. Findings: Review of the facility's Quality Assurance binder revealed there was no documented evidence the facility addressed issues or concerns identified on a quarterly basis. Further review of the binder revealed no documented evidence of minutes from the April, July and October 2023 quarterly meetings. On 10/11/2023 at 4:15 p.m., an interview with S1Administrator revealed he only had sign in sheets for the April, July, and October 2023 QA (Quality Assurance) meetings and did not have any meeting minutes or any documentation of tracking, trending or QAPI issues the facility addressed during the April, July, and October quarterly meetings.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-11 · tag F0908 — failed to keep essential equipment working — patternKeep all essential equipment working safely.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to maintain all mechanical and electrical equipment in safe operating condition, by having a grease build-up on the internal components of the deep fryer. Findings: On 10/09/2023 at 8:15 a.m., an observation revealed one large gas deep fryer located in the kitchen. Observation of the deep fryer revealed a grease build-up on the internal components that were housed inside of the fryer's lower compartment. S7Dietary Manager was present during the observation and confirmed that the fryer was a gas operated fryer. She further confirmed the deep fryer was not in safe operating condition due to the grease build-up on the internal components of the fryer. On 10/11/2023 at approximately 9:40 a.m., S1Administrator was notified of the above findings.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-11 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure a resident with limited range of motion receives appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and/or to prevent further decrease in range of motion for 1 (#18) of 2 (#8, #18) residents reviewed for limited range of motion. The facility failed to ensure staff placed a splint device to resident #18's contracted right hand. Findings: Review of the medical record for sampled resident #18 revealed an admission date of 06/08/2022 with diagnoses of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, spastic hemiplegia, right hand contracture and cerebral infarction. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively impaired and needed assistance with activities of daily living. Further review of the Minimum Data Set revealed documentation of functional limitation of upper extremity on one side. On 10/09/2023 at 1:10 p.m., observation revealed resident #18 had a contracture to the right hand…
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 · E2023-09-27 · tag F0773 — patternProvide or obtain laboratory tests/services when ordered and promptly tell the ordering practitioner of the results.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews, the provider failed to promptly notify the ordering physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical specialist of laboratory results that fall outside of clinical reference ranges for 1 (#1) of 1 (#1) residents who received seizure medications. Findings: Review of resident #1's medical record revealed a physician's order dated 05/13/2023 for Dilantin 100 milligrams; give one capsule by mouth every a.m. at 9:00 a.m. Further review revealed a second order dated of 05/13/2023 for Phenytoin (Dilantin) 100 milligrams; give one capsule by mouth at bedtime every day at 9:00 p.m. Review of a hand written physician's order dated 09/26/2023 revealed an order to increase Dilantin to 200 milligrams every p.m. and 100 milligrams every a.m. Further review revealed a second order to check a Dilantin level in one week. Review revealed diagnosis as history of seizures and recent seizure activity. Review of the medical record further revealed a laboratory final report…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to PARAMOUNT HEALTHCARE CONSULTANTS — 14 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 2.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 1 of 5 | 2.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
The other 13 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| DCZ HEALTHCARE INVESTMENTS, LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 01/01/2008 |
| PKC INVESTMENTS, LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2008 |
| AVALON PLACE PROPERTY, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2008 |
| DCZ1 VENTURES LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2008 |
| HALL, MATTHEW | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2021 |
| PARAMOUNT HEALTHCARE CONSULTANTS, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2008 |
| STEPHEN DUCK, CPA PC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2018 |
| COBURN, KELLY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2008 |
| COBURN, PAUL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2008 |
| EL MALAH, AMIN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2002 |
| SMITH, DAWNE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2008 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
6 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 $1.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 19% 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 195492. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-03, 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.