Garden Park Nursing & Rehab CTR, LLC

Location & what’s nearby

Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

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.

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.

38.0% 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 125 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 61.0% 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 95 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 0.40 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 69% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 28% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 160 beds and averages 137.4 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 23 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 3.79 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.40 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.33 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.30 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.99 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.47 to 0.22 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 31% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

15 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 5 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · E2025-09-10 · tag F0577 — pattern
  Allow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure the most recent survey results were readily accessible to the residents, family members or anyone to review. Findings: An observation on 09/08/2025 at 10:00 a.m. failed to reveal the most recent survey result was in the facility's survey binder. During an interview on 09/08/2025 at 10:01 a.m. with S1 Administrator confirmed most the recent survey was not in survey binder and should have been.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-09-10 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — pattern
  Ensure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the resident is free from physical or chemical restraints imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience and that are not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms for 3 (#15, #58, #139) of 3 (#15, #58, #139) residents reviewed for restraints . The facility failed to ensure:1. a pre-restraint assessment and written consent were in place for the use of Resident #15's lap buddy and 2. a pre-restraint assessment and written consent were in place for the use of Resident #58 and Resident #139's self-releasing seat belt. Findings: Review of the facility's undated policy for Restraints: Physical revealed in part:Policy:A physical restraint is defined as any manual method or mechanical, physical device, material, or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily which restricts freedom of movement or normal access to one's body. Physical restraints include, but are not…

  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 · E2025-09-10 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — pattern
  Prevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
  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 a resident with an order for psychotropic medication as needed (PRN) was not subjected to chemical restraints for 1 (#139) of 4 (#3, #7, #10 and #139) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility failed to ensure Resident #139's PRN order for psychotropic medication was limited to 14 days. Findings:Review of Resident #139's medical record revealed an admit date of 11/12/2018 with diagnoses including in part muscle wasting and atrophy, cognitive communication deficit, dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere, severe, with mood disturbance.Review of Resident #139's physician orders revealed an order dated 01/28/2025 for Vistaril oral capsule 25 mg (milligram) (Hydroxyzine Pamoate); give 1 capsule by mouth every 8 hours as needed for anxiety and/or restlessness without a stop date.During an interview on 09/09/2025 at 1:00 p.m., S4DON (Director of Nursing) acknowledged Resident #139 had a PRN Vistaril order for anxiety greater than 14 days. S4DON reported the prn Vistaril order should have had 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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-09-10 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for 1(#137) of 1(#137) resident out a total of 46 sampled residents whose assessments were reviewed. The facility failed to complete Resident #137's discharge assessment. Findings: Review of Resident #137's medical record revealed an admission date of 03/11/2025 and a discharge date of 03/17/2025 with a diagnosis of but not limited to low back pain, schizophrenia, hypertensive chronic kidney disease with stage 4 chronic kidney disease, generalized muscle weakness, essential hypertension, and muscle wasting and atrophy. Review of Resident #137's MDS (minimum data set) assessments failed to reveal a discharge assessment had been completed when Resident #137 was discharged from the facility on 03/17/2025. Further review of Resident #137's MDS tracking revealed the following statement: Discharge ARD (assessment reference date) of 03/17/2025, 162 days overdue. During an interview on 09/09/2025 at 10:07 a.m. S10 MDS nurse and S9 Medicare Case Manager…

  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 · E2025-09-10 · tag F0644 — pattern
  Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to refer a resident with newly evident or possible severe mental disorder, intellectual disability, or related conditions for a Level II PASARR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review) services for 1 (#23) of 2 (#10, #23) residents reviewed for PASARR. The failure had the potential for residents to not be provided with specialized rehabilitation services, causing feelings of boredom, hopelessness, and a diminished quality of life. Findings:Review of Resident #23's medical record revealed an admit date of 07/11/2019.Review of Resident #23's PASARR dated 07/10/2019 revealed no diagnoses of mental illness and a Level II PASARR was not indicated. Review of Resident #23's medical record revealed a diagnosis of brief psychotic disorder dated 06/04/2020 and a diagnosis of major depressive disorder, recurrent, severe with psychotic symptoms dated 01/01/2025.Further review of Resident #23's medical record failed to reveal a new PASARR had been submitted related to diagnoses received after admission which included brief psychotic…

  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 · E2025-09-10 · 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 record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to develop an individualized person-centered care plan to meet the needs of 5 (#3, #5, #58, #69, #111) residents out of 5 (#3, #5, #58, #69, #111) residents reviewed for plan of care. The facility failed to ensure:1. Resident #3's plan of care included appropriate approaches for current diagnosis of non-Alzheimer's Dementia.2. Resident #5's care plan included diagnosis of anxiety and receiving anti-anxiety medications. 3. Resident #58's plan of care included a focus for wound care with appropriate interventions 4. Resident #69's plan of care included appropriate approaches for the current wound care.5. Resident #111 care plan included a focus on use of bed rail/side rail with appropriate interventions. Findings: Resident #3 Review of Resident #3's medical record revealed an admission date 07/15/2025 and diagnoses that included Non-Alzheimer's dementia. Review of Resident #3's comprehensive care plan failed to reveal Resident #3 had been care planned…

  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 · E2025-09-10 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — pattern
  Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record reviews, observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide services that met professional standards for 1 (#6) of 3 (#6, #42, and #111) residents reviewed for accident hazards and supervision. The facility failed to ensure safe medication administration practices by leaving medications at the bedside. Findings:Review of the facility's Medication Administration undated policy revealed in part:Medications are administered as prescribed, in accordance with good nursing principles and practices and only by person legally authorized to do so. Personnel authorized to administer medications de no only after they have familiarized themselves with the medication.5. Residents are allowed to self-administer medications when specifically authorized by the IDT (Interdisciplinary team) which includes the attending physician and in accordance with procedures for self-administration of medications. (See policy for self-administration of medications)6. Medications are administered at the time they are prepared. Medications are not pre-poured, unless the facility uses 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-09-10 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — pattern
  Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure respiratory care was provided consistent with professional standards of practice and follow facility's policies for 3 (#49,# 69, #150) of 3 (#49, #69, #150) residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure resident #49's oxygen concentrator filter was clean and an oxygen in use sign was placed on the outside of resident #69 and #150's room entrance door.Findings: Review of the facility's Oxygen Administration (concentrator or tank) undated policy revealed in part: Policy: While oxygen is in use, No Smoking, signs will be posted at the entrance to the room. .Concentrator filter should be cleaned weekly or as needed. Procedure: 13. Place the No Smoking, Oxygen in Use warning sign on the resident's room door or in other appropriate locations. Resident #49 Review of Resident #49's face sheet revealed an admission date of 07/25/2025 with the following diagnoses but not limited to (COPD) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with (acute) exacerbation, dependence on supplemental…

  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 · D2025-09-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
  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 interviews, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control techniques were practiced to prevent cross contamination during incontinence care for 1 (#124) of 1 (#124) Resident reviewed for urinary catheter and UTI (Urinary Tract Infection). Findings:Review of the facility's Catheter Management undated policy revealed in part: Procedurec. Female resident: separate labia with thumb and forefinger of non-dominant hand and cleanse the area with a wash cloth, soap, and water or personal cleanser using downward strokes. While applying gentle traction to the catheter, cleanse it six inches from the insertion site using downward strokes as well. Flip or change washcloth with each wipe. Review of Resident #124's medical record revealed an admission date of 08/29/2025 and diagnosis of subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing. Review of Resident #124's physician orders revealed an order dated 08/29/2025: Catheter care with soap and water; every day shift An observation on 09/10/2025 at 8:15 a.m. of Resident #124'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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2024-08-08 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — pattern
  Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
  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 accommodate the needs of 4 (#9, #34, #106, #108) of 4 (#9, #34, #106, #108) residents reviewed for accommodation of needs out of a total sample of 31. The facility failed to ensure the resident's call light was within reach of the resident. Findings: Review of the facility's undated Fall Prevention Program Policy revealed in part: II: Preventive Protocol: A. admission Guidelines concerning fall: a. Prevention for High Risk residents: 2. Resident will be instructed regarding use of call bell by staff. Call bell will be placed within each resident's reach when feasible while in personal room. Resident will also be instructed to call for assistance when needed. Resident #9 Review of Resident #9's medical record revealed an admit date of 02/24/2017 with diagnoses that included lack of coordination, dementia without behavioral disturbances, presence of left artificial knee joint, and Alzheimer's disease with late onset. Review of Resident #9's care plan revealed Resident #9 was at high risk for falls, had a…

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

  Resident Rights 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.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to CENTRAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY — 21 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 →

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

CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

This home reported $4.8M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 29% 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 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). 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