No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Rosepine Retirement & Rehab Center, LLC

18364 Central Avenue, Rosepine, LA 70659 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 108 certified beds · (337) 463-8778 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (337) 463-8778 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Nov 20231 immediate-jeopardy citation CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$13,046 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2023
  • 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
  • inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
  • 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 $13,046 in federal fines (most recent 2024-06-12)
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
  • its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
  • 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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 2 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 2 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
501 Shirley St · (337) 463-5177 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
18507 Johnny B Hall Memorial Hwy · (337) 462-0177 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
8759 Main St · (337) 396-9077 · Call to confirm hours
Park
246 Ambler Rd · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
18355 Johnny B Hall Memorial Hwy · (337) 221-3015

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 2 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 1 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased23.2%17.8%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight4.1%5.2%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder2.0%1.2%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%2.1%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.4%2.3%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury2.9%3.5%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened23.0%17.9%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication21.2%23.2%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine98.8%94.9%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers5.1%5.6%4.7%typical
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control16.0%15.8%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table15.4%22.7%17.1%typical
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication10.3%3.1%1.4%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine90.0%76.3%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission34.4%28.0%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit9.2%14.8%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.922.561.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.092.741.80worse

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.

34.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 78 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

34.8%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
12.2%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
52.4%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.29U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.18hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.08hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.03hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 52.4% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 63 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 45% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF34.8%CMS range 24.7–48.051.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024worse than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF12.2%CMS range 8.3–17.910.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge52.4%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge68.2%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge49.2%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay2.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.8%CMS range 4.4–11.47.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.431.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.24
RN hours/ resident / day
1.01
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.47
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.72
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.12
RN hoursweekends
51.7%
Total nursing turnover
71.4%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 108 beds and averages 81.4 residents a day — about 75% occupied, or roughly 27 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.72 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.24 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.47 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 3.06 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.98 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.29 to 0.12 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% 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

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-01-22)
5
at the previous standard inspection (2024-10-16)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

  • Immediate jeopardy · J2024-06-12 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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

    Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure facility staff used a mechanical lift with two person assist during transfer from the bed to chair for 1 (Resident #2) of 3 (Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3) residents sampled for accidents. The facility census was 84. This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy for Resident #2 on 05/19/2024 between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., when S3 CNA attempted to transfer Resident #2, who required a Mechanical lift with 2 person assistance, without the use of the lift and assistance of another staff. Resident #2 sustained a fall during the attempted transfer by S3 CNA. Resident #2 was sent to the local ER following the fall due to complaint of pain to both knees. Resident #2 was diagnosed with a fracture of the Left Femur and Right Tibia, and sent to another facility for a higher level of care. Resident #2 required Closed Reduction surgery to Left Femur on 05/24/2024. The facility implemented corrective actions prior to the State Agency's investigation therefore, it was determined to be a Past…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Potential for harm · E2026-01-22 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — pattern
    Honor 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

    Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure prompt efforts to resolve grievances/complaints, voiced in The Resident Council, were addressed and acted upon for 2 (11/2025 and 12/2025) of 3 months reviewed for grievances/complaints. The facility census was 88. Findings: Review of an undated facility policy on 01/22/2026 at 4:04 p.m. titled, Grievances/Complaints revealed the following .4. Upon receipt of a grievance and/or complaint, the grievance official will ensure prompt investigation and resolution of the allegations; ensure that immediate action is taken if necessary to prevent further violations of any resident rights while the allegation is under investigation. Review of an undated facility policy on 01/21/2026 at 10:49 a.m. titled, Smoking Policy revealed the following .5. Any resident who is deemed safe to smoke, with or without supervision, will be allowed to smoke in designated smoking areas. 6. Smoking is not allowed in resident rooms or any other non-designated smoking area. Smoking areas will be designated. Review of the facility…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-01-22 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's comprehensive care plan was revised to reflect the resident's current Advanced Directive status for 1 (Resident #11) of 18 sampled residents.Findings:Review of Resident #11's electronic medical record revealed an admission date of 09/25/2025, with diagnoses including, in part . Unspecified Mycosis; Atherosclerotic Heart Disease of Native Coronary Artery without Angina Pectoris; Anorexia, Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia without Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms. Review of Resident #11's electronic record bed board, orders, and LaPost (Louisiana Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment) signed on 10/09/2025 by the resident's physician and Personal Health Care Representative revealed the resident had an advanced directive designation of DNR (Do Not Attempt Resuscitation Allow Natural Death). Review of Resident #11's current comprehensive care plan revealed, in part .Code Status: Full Code, with a revised date of 10/02/2025. Interview on 01/22/2026 at 12:37 p.m., with S2 DON confirmed that Resident #11's care plan…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-01-22 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
    Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices by failing to ensure an advanced directive was properly reflected in the resident's medical record for 2 (Resident #3 and Resident #44) of 18 sampled residents reviewed for advanced directive status. Findings:Resident #3 Review of Resident #3's medical record revealed an admit date of 12/29/2025 with diagnoses that included: Encounter for Other Orthopedic Aftercare; Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with (Acute) Lower Respiratory Infection; Hypertensive Heart Disease with Heart Failure; Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, Moderate. Review of Resident #3's electronic record dashboard/orders revealed the resident was a Full Code status. Review of Resident #3's 01/2026 physician's orders revealed the code status as Full Code signed on 01/05/2026. Review of Resident #3's care plan with the revision date of 01/11/2026 revealed the code status as Full Code. Review of Resident #3's LaPost (Louisiana Physician Orders for…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-10-16 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — pattern
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to ensure that a resident maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status for 1 (#11) of 2 (#11 and #23) residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility failed to provide ordered dietary supplements for a resident with significant weight loss. Findings: Resident #11 Review of the Resident #11's medical record revealed an admit date of 09/04/2021 with a reentry date of 03/18/2022. Diagnoses included .Parkinson's Disease, Mild Protein-Calorie Malnutrition, Dysphagia - Oropharyngeal Phase, and Muscle Wasting and Atrophy. Review of Resident #11's Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 08/14/2024 revealed a BIMS score of 13, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Resident #11 required extensive assistance by one person with eating. Review of Resident #11's medical record revealed the resident was care planned for a nutritional problem related to a diagnosis of Protein Calorie Malnutrition, no salt on tray, and mechanical soft diet. Interventions included in part: Monitor, record, and report to Medical…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-10-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary environment, to help prevent the development and transmission of infection for 3 (#26, #45, and #72) of 4 (#26, #45, #72, and #83) residents reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to: 1. Ensure staff wore proper PPE while providing wound care to Resident #26; 2. Ensure staff wore proper PPE while proving personal hygiene to Resident #45; and 3. Ensure staff performed proper hand hygiene and maintained a clean technique while performing wound care for Residents #26 and #72. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions read in part . It is the policy of this facility to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for the prevention of transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO). 46. Enhanced Barrier Precautions - a. Nursing staff will place residents with any applicable conditions or devices on EBP. An order may be obtained. Applicable conditions and devices: i.…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-16 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 (#83) of 4 (#17, #21, #76 and #83) sampled residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to monitor a medication that was self-administered by a resident. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication - Self-Administration with no date, revealed the following, in part: .The nurse will check with the resident each day and document on the MAR if the medication was taken as reported by the resident . Review of Resident #83's medical record revealed an admit date of 09/02/2024 with diagnoses that included in part .Major Depressive Disorder, Hypertensive Heart Disease without Heart Failure, Obstructive and Reflux Uropathy, Shortness of Breath and Pain. Review of Resident #83's admission MDS with an ARD of 09/09/2024 revealed a BIMS summary score of 15, indicating Resident #83 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #83's current care plan with a start date of 09/07/2024, revealed Resident #83 may keep Albuterol inhaler at bedside…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-10-16 · tag F0685 — isolated
    Assist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing 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 Resident #47 Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received proper treatment and an assistive device to maintain and/or improve hearing for 1 (#47) resident reviewed for communication and sensory problems out of a total sample of 21 residents. Findings: Review of Resident #47's Medical Record revealed an admission date of 06/21/2023 with diagnoses that included in part . Benign Paroxysmal Vertigo, Unspecified Ear, Age-related Cataracts, Bilateral, Hypertensive Heart Disease with Heart Failure, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Parkinson's disease and Speech and Language Deficits following unspecified Cerebrovascular Disease. Review of Resident #47's Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 07/25/2024 revealed a BIMS score of 15, indicative of intact cognition. Review of MDS revealed resident with moderate difficulty with ability to hear and speaker has to increase volume and speak distinctly. Resident did not use a hearing aid or other hearing appliance. Review of Resident #47's…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-10-16 · tag F0868 — isolated
    Have 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

    FACILITY QAPI and QAA Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee meeting included the required 6 staff members for the facility's quarterly committee meetings. Findings: Review of the facility's 4th Quarterly Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) committee sign in sheet conducted on January, 06, 2024 revealed staff in attendance was the facility's Medical Director, Infection Preventionist, staff RN and a staff LPN. Interview on 10/16/2024 at 2:40 p.m. with S2 DON revealed that she was present as a staff RN at the time of the 4th Quarterly QAA meeting was held but the DON at that time was not present. During an joint interview on 10/16/2024 at 2:43 p.m., S1 Administrator and S2 DON indicated that the other members were not available at the time of the QAA meeting scheduled with the facility's Medical Director. S1 Administrator confirmed the required staff members were not in attendance for the Quarterly QAA meetings and should have been.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-11-01 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — pattern
    Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
    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 meet the nutritional needs of Residents in accordance with established national guidelines. The Facility failed to follow the menu in regard to portion size to ensure nutritional adequacy of the meal for all 70 Residents who receive meals prepared by the Facility kitchen. Findings: Review of the facility's approved Menu Matrix revealed: Lunch: Fried Chicken 4oz. Instructions read in part Serve 4oz breaded portion=3oz meat 1 Breast or 1 Thigh + 1 Drumstick An observation on 10/30/2023 at 12:00 p.m. in the dining room during lunch revealed dietary staff preparing resident plates in the kitchen area. The meal included fried chicken. An observation of a resident plate revealed 1 drum stick as the only meat serving on the plate. The plate was covered and placed on the meal cart for facility residents dining in their room. An interview on 10/30/2023 at 12:05 p.m. with S3 Dietary Manager revealed there was no scale in the facility to weigh serving sizes and that staff usually just eye ball the food items that 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-01 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her 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 observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure that each Resident was treated with respect and dignity and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 1 (Resident #223) of 2 (Resident #12 and Resident #223) Residents sampled for dignity, by failing to ensure she was free of facial hair. Total sample size was 23. Findings: Review of Resident #223's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included: Alzheimer's Disease, Depression Unspecified, Mild-Protein Calorie Malnutrition, Anemia, Age-Related Physical Debility and Unspecified Atrial Fibrillation. Review of Resident 223 #'s Annual MDS with an ARD of 09/26/2023 revealed she had a BIMS score of 3 (indicating severe cognitive impairment). The MDS revealed Resident #223 required two person physical assistance with bed mobility and transfers; total dependence with toilet use, bathing and personal hygiene and one person physical…

    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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-01 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    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 a resident's right to be free from unsolicited sexual abuse (touching) for 1 (Resident #60) of 1 sampled residents. The facility failed to protect Resident #60 from sexual abuse by Resident #48 on 07/01/2023. Total sample size was 23. Findings: The review of the facility's policy titled Abuse Prevention and Investigation read in part . Sexual Abuse is non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident. Resident #60 Review of Resident #60's clinical record revealed an admit date of 03/31/2023 with diagnoses which included: Major Depressive Disorder, Unspecified Dementia, and Vascular Dementia. Review of Resident #60's Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 08/14/2023 revealed a BIMS score of 3 (indicating severe cognitive impairment). Review of Resident #60's Care Plan with a review date of 11/14/2023 revealed a problem of Altered Cognition related to diagnosis of Dementia, Depression and Suicidal Ideations with interventions that included: Ask simple questions with visual cues if possible and to assist with decision…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-01 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely 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 sexual abuse was reported to the State Survey Agency immediately but not later than 2 hours after the resident to resident sexual abuse was discovered for 1 (#60) of 1 residents reviewed for abuse in a total of 23 sampled residents. Interview on 10/30/2023 at 2:48 p.m. with S1 ADM revealed on 07/01/2023 at 6:00 p.m. Resident #60's groin area was touched by Resident #48. S1 ADM revealed this incident of resident to resident non- consensual sexual contact was witnessed by S10 CNA. S1 ADM confirmed Resident #60 was not cognitively intact to consent to being touched by Resident #48. Review of the SIMS (Statewide Incident Management System) report dated 07/11/2023 revealed the allegation of sexual abuse for Resident #60 had been substantiated by the facility. Documentation on the SIMS report reflected the discovery date and time of sexual abuse for Resident #60 was on 07/01/2023 at 6:03 p.m. The SIMS entry time was noted as 07/02/2023 at 2:31 p.m. Interview on 10/31/2023 at 2:48 p.m.…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-11-01 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident's person-centered plan of care for use of a magnifying glass was followed for 1 (Resident #52) resident. Total sample size was 23. Findings: Review of Resident #52's clinical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included: Legal Blindness Review of Resident #52's Annual MDS with an ARD of 07/26/2023 revealed resident had a BIMS score of 12 (which indicated moderately impaired cognition), and exhibited no behaviors or rejection of care. The MDS revealed Resident #52's vision was coded as being moderately impaired-limited vision, not able to see newspaper headlines but can identify objects. Review of Resident #52's Care Plan with a Review date of 01/11/2024 read in part .resident had impaired vision: Legally blind in right eye, left eye vision adequate, does not wear glasses with interventions that included provide large print materials and a magnifying reading glass to read…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-01 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who were unable to carry out ADLs (Activities of Daily Living) received the necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene. The facility failed to provide nail care for 3 (Resident #2, Resident #18 and Resident #52) of 6 (Resident #2, Resident #11, Resident #18, Resident #26, Resident #35 and Resident #52) residents reviewed for ADL care. Findings: Review of the Facility's Nail Care read in part . Policy: The Purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the provision of care to a resident's nails for good grooming and health. 1. Routine cleaning and inspection of nails will be provided during ADL care on an ongoing basis. 2. Routine nail care, to include trimming and filing, will be provided by nurse on a regular schedule per care plan unless contraindicated. Nail Care will be provided between scheduled occasions as the need arises. #2 Review of Resident #2's Care plan with a review date 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$13,046 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $13,046 — penalty dated 2024-06-12

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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 52.9+1.1 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 53.3+0.7 vs chain
Staffing 2 of 52.5-0.5 vs chain
Quality measures 2 of 51.9+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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
ABINGTON FAMILY HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF13%since 04/01/2023
B & J LIMITED PARTNERSHIPOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF13%since 06/07/2004
JKS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF13%since 01/01/2012
REVOCABLE TRUST OF ROY BUSH BRIDGES AND JUDY KAYE WINN BRIDGESOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF13%since 01/01/2022
THE VERNICE C WRIGHT IRREVOCABLE TRUSTOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF13%since 09/01/2018
CALVIN H JONES ESTATEOrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 08/11/2025
ABINGTON, LEONARDIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF13%since 04/01/2023
BRIDGES, ROYIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF6%since 01/01/2022
ROOS, ELLAIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF6%since 01/01/2022
SANDERS, JACKIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/07/2004
RIGHTCARE HEALTH SERVICES LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/16/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 24 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

7 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.

$8.0M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+13.7%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.3M
Related-party expense19% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 64%Medicare 16%Other / private 20%

This home reported $1.3M 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

$254per resident / day
operating cost
$7,710per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$294per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Louisiana
$7,604/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$8,076/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,163/mo
Assisted living

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 195416. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-22, 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.

What to do next