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

Booker T. Washington Skilled Nursing and Rehabilit

7605 Line Avenue, Shreveport, LA 71106 · For profit - Partnership · 80 certified beds · (318) 219-2608 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (318) 219-2608 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 14 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

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)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
Worth asking about
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
  • its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
  • nursing-staff turnover (58%) runs well above the national median (45%)
  • about 20% 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.

2/5
CMS overall
2 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 1 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 1 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
7923 Line Ave · (318) 752-7960 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
234 E 70th St · (318) 865-0234 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
300 West 84th Street
Park
S Emerald Loop · (318) 212-0220 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
7400 Line Ave

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 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 held steady at 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.

Overall rating2★
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 increased27.4%17.8%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight9.9%5.2%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.3%1.2%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.4%2.1%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms2.3%2.3%6.5%typical for the 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 injury0.0%3.5%3.3%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened22.2%17.9%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication5.8%23.2%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine97.3%94.9%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers6.5%5.6%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control24.2%15.8%21.2%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.9%3.1%1.4%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine87.5%76.3%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission25.5%28.0%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit11.9%14.8%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.042.561.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.902.741.80typical

* 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.

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.

46.9% 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 35 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

46.9%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.2%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
37.8%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.69U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.31hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.30hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 37.8% 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 37 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 0.69 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 91% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF46.9%CMS range 31.0–66.051.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.2%CMS range 7.4–17.410.7%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 discharge37.8%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 discharge37.8%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 discharge32.4%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 identified95.8%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 dischargenot 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 stay0.0%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 worsened11.1%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 hospitalization9.0%CMS range 5.1–13.77.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.341.02Oct 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

0.19
RN hours/ resident / day
1.15
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.77
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.10
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.11
RN hoursweekends
57.6%
Total nursing turnover
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 80 beds and averages 72.9 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.10 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.19 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.77 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.83 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.21 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.22 to 0.11 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 58% is well above the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

4
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-06-09)
5
at the previous standard inspection (2025-04-02)

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.

14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · E2026-06-09 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — pattern
    Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
    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 provide documentation regarding the existence of any written advance directives for 3 (#4, #25, #69) of 8 residents reviewed for Advanced Directives. Findings: Review of the facility's Advance Directives policy (revised 05/31/2023) revealed in part: Upon admission, the resident will be provided with written information concerning the right to refuse or accept medical or surgical treatment and to formulate an advance directive if he or she chooses to do so. 6. Prior to or upon admission of a resident, the Social Services Director or designee will inquire of the resident, his/her family members and/or his or her legal representative, about the existence of any written advance directives. 8. If the resident indicates that he or she has not established advance directives, the facility staff will offer assistance in establishing advance directives. Resident #4 Review of Resident #4's record revealed an admit date of 05/07/2026 and diagnoses including:…

    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 · E2026-06-09 · tag F0636 — pattern
    Assess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Safe Smoking Assessments were completed on admit and with each subsequent MDS assessment per policy for 1 (#26) of 1 residents reviewed for smoking. Findings: Review of the facility's Smoking Policy - Residents (revised 03/08/2023) included in part:The resident will be evaluated on admission to determine if he or she is a smoker or non-smoker. If a smoker, the evaluation will include the ability to smoke safely with or without supervision per a completed Safe Smoking Evaluation or equivalent form. Once a resident is determined to be a smoker, his/her ability to smoke safely will be evaluated upon admission, subsequent MDS and PRN. Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure Safe Smoking Assessments were completed on admit and with each subsequent MDS per policy for 1 (#26) of 1 residents reviewed for smoking. Findings: Review of the facility's Smoking Policy - Residents (revised 03/08/2023) included in part:The resident will be evaluated on admission to determine if he or she is a smoker or…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2026-06-09 · tag F0637 — pattern
    Assess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
    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 a significant change assessment was completed for 1 (#15) of 1 reviewed for significant change assessment. Findings: Review of Resident #15's medical record revealed an admission date of 06/13/2022 with diagnosis that included, in part, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side, aphasia following cerebral infarction, dysphagia following cerebral infarction, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, chronic kidney disease stage two, peripheral vascular disease with heart failure, chronic diastolic congestive heart failure, unspecified systolic congestive heart failure, and atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris. Review of Resident #15's MDS dated [DATE], Section C showed that a BIMS was No (resident is rarely/never understood). Resident had memory problem for short term and long term. Cognitive skills for daily decision making was marked severely impaired.…

    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 · E2026-06-09 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — pattern
    Provide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
    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 ensure residents' code status wishes for emergency basic life support were consistent and accurate across all areas of residents' medical records for 2 (#4, #78) of 8 residents reviewed for Advanced Directives. The facility failed to ensure the residents' records reflected the residents' wishes to be a DNR. Findings:Review of the facility's Advance Directives policy (revised [DATE]) revealed in part: 10. The plan of care for each resident will be consistent with his or her documented treatment preferences and/or advance directive11. The resident has the right to refuse treatment, whether or not he or she has an advance directive. A resident will not be treated against his or her own wishes. 15. Our facility has defined advanced directives as preferences regarding treatment options and include, but are not limited to: e. Do Not Resuscitate - indicates that, in case of respiratory or cardiac failure, the resident, legal guardian, health care proxy, or…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-04-02 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — pattern
    Provide 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 reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure 2 (#46, #223) of 20 sampled residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice by failing to ensure: 1. Resident #46's high blood glucose levels were rechecked as ordered after being administered sliding scale insulin for glucose levels greater than 400, and a Hemoglobin A1C (Glycated hemoglobin- a blood test that measures the average blood sugar level over the past 2-3 months) was obtained every 3 months as ordered; 2. Resident #223's care was coordinated with the Hospice provider regarding the resident's medications. Findings: 1. Review of Resident #46's records revealed an admit date of 04/19/2024 with diagnoses including: Type 2 diabetes mellitus, end stage renal disease, and mild-protein-calorie malnutrition. Review of Resident #46's active Physician's Orders revealed orders including: - 05/06/24 - Humalog Injection Solution 100 unit/ml (milliliters)- Inject subcutaneously as per…

    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 · E2025-04-02 · 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 reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide nutritional and hydration care and services consistent with the resident's comprehensive assessment for 1 (#69) of 4 (#9, #46, #62, #69) residents reviewed for nutrition. The facility failed to consult the Registered Dietician (RD) for Resident #69. Findings: Review of Facility's Nutrition and Hydration to Maintain Skin Integrity Policy (revised October 2010) revealed: Assessment - Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the assessment of resident nutritional needs, to aid in the development of an individualized care plan for nutritional interventions, and to help support the integrity of the skin through nutrition and hydration. Nutritional Assessment - 1. The dietician and RD, in conjunction with the nursing staff and healthcare practitioners, will conduct a nutritional assessment for each resident upon admission/re-admission and as indicated by a change in condition that places the resident at risk for impaired nutrition, 2. Re-assessments will be conducted more often if 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-04-02 · tag F0624 — isolated
    Prepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge from the nursing home.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide and document sufficient preparation and orientation for 1(#70) of 1(#70) resident reviewed to ensure safe and orderly transfer or discharge from the facility. The facility failed to provide resident #70 or her responsible party with required documents; a discharge summary and plan. Findings: Review of the facility's Transfer or Discharge Preparing a Resident. (Revised December 2016) Policy and Procedure revealed in part: Policy Statement - Residents will be prepared in advance for discharge. Policy interpretation and Implementation 1. When a resident is scheduled for transfer or discharge, office will notify nursing services of the transfer or discharge so that appropriate procedures can be implemented. 2. A post discharge plan is developed for each resident prior to his or her transfer or discharge. This plan will be reviewed with the resident, and/or his or her family, at least twenty-four (24) hours before the resident's discharge or transfer from the facility. 3. Nursing, Social Director and Interdisciplinary…

    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 · Dcited before2025-04-02 · 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 record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan consistent with the resident rights that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs. The facility failed to develop 1 (#69) out of 25 total sampled resident's care plan to include diagnosis and approaches for diabetes mellitus. Findings: Review of Resident #69's medical records revealed an admit date of 02/20/2025 with the following diagnoses, including in part: other sequelae of cerebral infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with (acute) exacerbation, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, and unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition. Type 2 diabetes mellitus diagnosis documented on nurse practitioner progress note. Review of Resident #69's comprehensive care plan failed to reveal a problem and approaches for diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Review of Resident #69's Nurse Practitioner (NP) progress notes dated 03/07/2025 revealed: Acute/Follow-Up - Chief…

    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 · D2025-04-02 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    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 proper infection control techniques were practiced to prevent urinary tract infection for 1 (#17) of 1 (#17) residents observed during incontinence care. Findings: Review of Resident #17's medical records revealed an admit date of 11/21/2024 with the following diagnoses, including in part: other idiopathic peripheral autonomic neuropathy, obesity, age-related physical debility, myalgia/unspecified site, and primary generalized osteoarthritis. Review of Resident #17's MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessment with an assessment reference date of 02/24/2025 revealed in part: -BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status = 05 out of 15 indicating severe cognitive impairment; -required extensive assistance with 2+ persons physical assistance for bed mobility and transfers, and total dependence with 2+ persons physical assistance for toilet use, and was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. Observation on 04/01/2025 beginning at 11:25 a.m. revealed S7 CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) performed incontinence care…

    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 · E2024-05-15 · tag F0641 — pattern
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure assessments were accurate for 1 (#2) of 3 (#1, #2 and #3) sample residents. The facility failed to ensure resident #2's annual MDS (minimum data set) with ARD (assessment reference date) 04/30/2024 accurately reflected resident #2's self-care abilities. Findings: Review of resident #2's clinical records revealed diagnoses of other sequelae of cerebral infarction, gross hematuria, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and dysphagia following cerebral infarction, unspecified dementia, and moderate with behavioral disturbance, hematuria, acute kidney failure, unspecified, chronic kidney disease, and stage 3 chronic kidney disease Review of resident #2's annual MDS with ARD 04/30/2024 revealed Section GG - Functional Abilities Self-Care assessment indicating Resident #2 is independent in his ability to eat, perform oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, self-showering /bathing and dressing upper and lower body. Review of Occupational Therapy Evaluation & Plan of Treatment with Certification Period: 05/10/2024 - 06/08/2024…

    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 · E2024-03-06 · tag F0640 — pattern
    Encode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of 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 interview, the facility failed to ensure a Discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed timely for 1 (Resident #32) out of 18 (Resident #9, #13, #15, #20, #30, #32, #34, #40, #43, #44, #53, #56, #59, #60, #69, #70, #72, and #73) sampled residents investigated. Findings: Review of Resident #32's medical record revealed Resident #32 was admitted on [DATE] and discharged from the facility on 10/23/2023. Review of Resident #32's Discharge MDS dated [DATE] revealed a completion date of 02/22/2024 and a transmission date of 02/29/2024. Review of Resident #32's medical record failed to reveal a Discharge MDS assessment was completed and transmitted within 14 days after the resident was discharged from the facility. During an interview on 03/06/2024 at 11:20 a.m., S5MDS Coordinator acknowledged Resident #32's 10/23/2023 Discharge MDS was not completed and transmitted within 14 days of discharge and should have been.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-03-06 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
    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 observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a plan of care had been developed for 4 (#56, #69, #70 and #72) residents. The facility also failed to ensure a plan of care had been implemented for 1 (#40 ) resident. This was out a total of 24 sampled residents whose plan of care had been reviewed. The facility failed to: 1. Develop a plan of care for Residents #56, #69, #70 and #72. 2. Implement the plan of care for Resident #40. Findings: Resident #56 Review of Resident #56's medical record revealed an admit date of 01/12/2024 with the following diagnoses in part: end stage renal disease, diabetes mellitus type 2 with diabetic chronic kidney disease, dependence on renal dialysis, and congestive heart failure. Review of Resident #56's Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 01/19/2024 revealed Resident #56 had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 7 indicating severely impaired cognition. Review of Resident #56's Physician Orders dated 02/29/2024 revealed an…

    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 · E2024-03-06 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — pattern
    Ensure 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

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of unnecessary medications for 1 (#15) out of 6 (#15, #20, #30, #34, #40, #69) sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility failed to monitor Resident #15 for edema while receiving a diuretic. Findings: Review of Resident #15's Medical Records revealed an admit date of 07/11/2014 with the following diagnoses, in part: type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications, congestive heart failure, other symptoms and signs involving the genitourinary system, obstructive and reflux uropathy/unspecified other viral pneumonia. Review of Resident #15's Physician's Orders revealed orders dated 01/05/2024 - Bumetanide oral tablet 1mg (milligram) give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day and Spironolactone oral tablet 100mg give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day. Review of Resident #15's January - March 2024 Medication Administration Records and Treatment Administration Records failed to reveal monitoring for edema. During an interview on 03/06/2024 at 10:35 a.m., S2 DON (Director of Nursing)…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-03-06 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — pattern
    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 record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's medical record was complete and accurately documented in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices for 3 (Resident #9, #43, #60) of 4 (Resident #9, #40, #43, and #60) residents reviewed for wounds. Findings: Review of facility's Wound Care policy with a revision date of November 2017 revealed in part: Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the care of wounds to promote healing. Documentation: The following information should be recorded in the resident's medical record: 1. They type of wound care given. 2. The date and time the wound care was given. 3. The name and title of the individual performing the wound care. 8. The signature and title of the person recording the data. Resident #9 Review of Resident #9's medical record revealed an admission dated of 03/31/2023 with the following medical diagnoses, in part: restlessness and agitation, mild protein-calorie malnutrition, muscle weakness, and pain. Review of Resident #9's physician order revealed 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning 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

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to PRIORITY MANAGEMENT — 38 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 2 of 52.9-0.9 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 53.2+0.8 vs chain
Staffing 1 of 51.6-0.6 vs chain
Quality measures 1 of 53.4-2.4 vs chain
The other 37 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.9★, per CMS)
1 of 5Alpine Skilled Nursing and RehabilitationRuston, LA 1 of 5Bridgeport Medical LodgeBridgeport, TX 1 of 5Camelot Rehabilitation At Magnolia ParkLafayette, LA 1 of 5Colonial Oaks Skilled Nursing and RehabilitationBossier City, LA 1 of 5Hilltop Park Rehabilitation And Care CenterWeatherford, TX 1 of 5Pilgrim Manor Skilled Nursing and RehabilitationBossier City, LA 1 of 5Shreveport Manor Skilled Nursing & RehabilitationShreveport, LA 1 of 5St Joseph Skilled Nursing and RehabilitationMonroe, LA 1 of 5The Bradford Skilled Nursing And RehabilitationShreveport, LA 1 of 5The Guest House Skilled Nursing and RehabilitationShreveport, LA 2 of 5Decatur Medical LodgeDecatur, TX 2 of 5Resthaven Living CenterBogalusa, LA 2 of 5Ridgmar Medical LodgeFort Worth, TX 3 of 5Broadmoor Medical LodgeRockwall, TX 3 of 5Camelot Of BroussardBroussard, LA 3 of 5Chateau St. James Rehab And RetirementLutcher, LA 3 of 5Louisiana Extended Care Hospital Of LafayetteLafayette, LA 3 of 5Mabank Nursing CenterMabank, TX 3 of 5Royse City Medical LodgeRoyse City, TX 3 of 5The Homestead of DenisonDenison, TX 3 of 5The Woodlands Healthcare CenterLeesville, LA 3 of 5Timber Springs Rehab and RetirementSpringhill, LA 4 of 5Belterra Health & RehabMcKinney, TX 4 of 5College Park Rehabilitation And Care CenterWeatherford, TX 4 of 5Jo Ellen Smith Convalescent CenterNew Orleans, LA 4 of 5Mansfield Medical LodgeMansfield, TX 4 of 5The Parks at Garland Healthcare and RehabGarland, TX 4 of 5Victoria Gardens Of AllenAllen, TX 4 of 5Victoria Gardens of FriscoFrisco, TX 4 of 5Vista Ridge Nursing & Rehabilitation CenterLewisville, TX 4 of 5Windmill Village Rehabilitation & Care CenterLubbock, TX 5 of 5Camelot BrooksideJennings, LA 5 of 5Chateau D'Ville Rehab and RetirementDonaldsonville, LA 5 of 5Chateau Terrebonne Health Care CenterHouma, LA 5 of 5Grapevine Medical LodgeGrapevine, TX 5 of 5Spring Lake Skilled Nursing And RehabilitationShreveport, LA 5 of 5Springtown Park Rehabilitation And Care CenterSpringtown, TX

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
SDB HOLDINGSOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 04/01/2019
BOULWARE, DOUGLASIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 04/01/2019
BOULWARE, STEVENIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 04/01/2019
PRIORITY MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2019
PROGRESSIVE REHAB SOLUTIONS, LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2019
BROWNLEE, KOURTNEYIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 04/14/2025
MCFARLAND, MAIRUSIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 04/15/2025
MCKINNEY, ASHLEYIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 09/19/2018

CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

3 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.

$8.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+4.6%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.6M
Related-party expense20% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 69%Medicare 22%Other / private 8%

This home reported $1.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 20% 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

$333per resident / day
operating cost
$10,115per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$349per 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 195615. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-09, 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