Magnolia Manor Nursing and Rehab Ctr, LLC
1411 Claiborne Avenue, Shreveport, LA 71103 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 98 certified beds · (318) 868-4421 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (30% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Apr 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- inspectors recorded 2 serious findings 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
- the CMS record shows $36,566 in federal fines (most recent 2025-04-03)
- about 24% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 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.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 13.2% | 17.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.1% | 5.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.1% | 1.2% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.3% | 2.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 2.3% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.8% | 3.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.4% | 17.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 8.0% | 23.2% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.3% | 5.6% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 8.2% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 28.2% | 22.7% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 3.1% | 1.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.3% | 28.0% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 23.5% | 14.8% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.21 | 2.56 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.46 | 2.74 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
36.4% 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 34 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 84.2% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 38 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 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 39% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 36.4%CMS range 24.0–54.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.8%CMS range 8.1–16.0 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 84.2% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 63.2% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 39.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 94.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.8% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.0%CMS range 3.2–11.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.98 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 98 beds and averages 89.4 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 9 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 3.57 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.28 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 3.13 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.75 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.33 to 0.15 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 30% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-04-03 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect 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 record review, surveillance video review and interviews, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical, verbal abuse and psychosocial harm by a staff member for 1 (#1) of 3 (#1, #2, #3) residents reviewed for abuse. The actual harm occurred for Resident #1, who was cognitively impaired, on 02/13/2025 at 8:32 a.m. when S6 CNA (Certified Nurse Assistant) was observed on surveillance video verbally and physically abusing Resident #1 while providing care. Physical abuse occurred when S6 CNA pulled down on Resident #1's left contracted leg, forcefully snatched Resident #1's right arm from the right side rail and pushed Resident #1's right arm towards him, then snatched the diaper off Resident #1. Verbal abuse occurred when S6 CNA cursed at Resident #1 saying, God d-mn it and D-mn. While S6 CNA provided incontinent care, S6 CNA stated, I can't do this anymore, I refuse to do this ever again, you trying to hurt me. It can be determined a reasonable person would not expect that they would be harmed in his own home or a health care facility and would…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-07-25 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect 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 record review, surveillance video review, and interviews, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical abuse and psychosocial harm by staff for 1 (#3) of 3 (#1, #2, #3) sampled residents. The actual harm resulted for Resident #3, who was cognitively impaired, on 07/04/2024 at approximately 7:33 p.m. when S7 Sunshine Aide was observed on surveillance video physically abusing Resident #3. S7 Sunshine Aide was observed hitting Resident #3 on her hands and forearm with a hard plastic kitchenware cup. Because this type of inappropriate, unwanted physical abuse would reasonably cause anyone to have psychosocial harm, it can be determined that the reasonable person in Resident #3's position would have experienced severe psychosocial harm-dehumanization, and humiliation- as a result of the physical abuse. The facility implemented corrective actions which were completed prior to the State Agency's investigation, thus it was determined to be a Past Noncompliance citation. Findings: Review of facility's Abuse/Neglect policy statement (revision date…
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.
- Actual harm · G2023-09-05 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure 1 (#1) of 5 (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5) residents reviewed for accidents received adequate supervision to prevent accidents/falls. The deficient practice resulted in harm for Resident #1 on 08/08/2023 when the resident fell from bed after S4 CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) left Resident #1's room during peri care to seek assistance of a second CNA. Resident #1 required two person assistance for bed mobility. On 08/08/2023 S4 CNA was providing peri care, Resident #1 was positioned to her right side with her foot hanging off the bed and S4 CNA realized she could not reposition Resident #1 alone. S4 CNA left Resident #1's room to obtain assistance and when S4 CNA returned, Resident #1 was on the floor with left leg bent at the knee. Resident #1 was transported and admitted to a local hospital on [DATE] with diagnosis of fracture of left femur. Findings: Review of hospital physician progress notes revealed in part: Resident #1 was admitted to hospital…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-30 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — isolatedMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program by failing to ensure the facility was free of pest and insects. The deficient practice had the potential to affect 89 residents who resided in the facility. Findings:Observation on 04/30/2026 at 8:30 a.m. with S3Housekeeping of Resident #1 and #3's room revealed a live roach crawling on the wall, on the top of Resident #1's refrigerator, and underneath the desk-style phone on top of the refrigerator. During an interview on 04/30/2026 at 8:30 a.m. S3Housekeeping reported she saw one roach yesterday in Resident #1 and #3's room. During an interview on 04/30/2026 at 8:40 a.m. S2Maintenance reported S4Certified Nurse Aide just made him aware yesterday afternoon about a roach on the wall in Resident #1 and #3's room.Observation on 04/30/2026 at 8:45 a.m. with S2Maintenance of Resident #1 and #3's room revealed roach feces and dead roach carcasses on the top of Resident #1's personal refrigerator. Further observation revealed when S2Maintenance picked up the phone and a book laying on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-04 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide 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 (#23) of 1 resident reviewed for indwelling catheter.Findings:Review of the facility's Catheter Management undated policy revealed in part:Policy: Catheter management is the routine care administered when an indwelling catheter is in place. This routine care protects the resident from infection, injury, and promotes comfort.b. Watch for kinking in the tubing to can interfere with patency and free flow of urine. Never allow the bag or tubing to touch the floor. Review of Resident #23's medical record revealed an admit date of 04/19/2022 with diagnoses including neurogenic bladder and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Review of Resident #23's current comprehensive care plan revealed Resident #23 had a suprapubic catheter related to a diagnosis of urinary retention.An observation on 03/02/2026 at 9:25 a.m., revealed Resident #23 was self-propelling down the hall in a wheelchair. Further observation revealed Resident #23'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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-04 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide 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 record review, observation, and interviews, the provider failed to ensure respiratory care was provided with professional standards of practice for 1 (#84) of 1 resident reviewed for respiratory care. Findings: Review of the provider's undated Oxygen Administration (concentrator or tank) policy included:Humidifier bottles, cannulas, and oxygen tubing will be changed at least once weekly and dated. Concentrator filter should be cleaned weekly or as needed as well. When not in use, cannula or mask should be placed in a plastic bag. Purpose:To administer high-purity oxygen for the treatment of disease or emergency conditions through oxygen concentrator or tank. Review of Resident #84's medical record revealed the following, in part: Resident #84 was admitted to the provider on 02/14/2026 with diagnoses including in part: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, tobacco use, nonspecific abnormal finding of lung field, centrilobular emphysema, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, and shortness of breath. Review of Resident #84's physician orders for March 2026 included:Oxygen…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-04 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored properly for 2 (#21 and #68) of 4 residents reviewed for accidents. Findings:Review of the facility's Self-Administration of Medication policy (undated) revealed in part:It is the policy of this facility that each resident has the right to self-administer medications, but is the responsibility of the interdisciplinary team to determine that it is safe prior to the resident exercising that right.If the right is granted, a specific order to self-administer must be obtained which includes how, when and for what reason the medication can be used.Facility personnel must assure safety of bedside storage of medication. A locked box may be necessary in some instances. Resident #21Review of Resident #21's medical record revealed an admit date of 10/02/2025 with diagnoses including in part chronic kidney disease, end stage renal disease and postmenopausal atrophic vaginitis. Review of Resident #21's Quarterly MDS…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-04 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain professional standards for food service safety by failing to ensure frozen food items were stored in a sealed container. Findings:Review of the facility's Storage of Frozen Food policy with a revision date of 12/2012 revealed in part:Policy: The facility ensures the quality and safety of frozen food through accepted storage practices.Procedure:4. Frozen food is stored in the original package.5. Food taken out of original containers is put in a clean, sanitized container with a tight fitting. No food is left uncovered. An observation of the walk-in freezer on 03/02/2026 at 8:00 a.m. revealed frozen broccoli, frozen egg rolls and frozen waffles stored in unsealed plastic bags and open to air. During an interview on 03/02/2026 at 8:00 a.m., S3Dietary Manager acknowledged the frozen broccoli, frozen egg rolls and frozen waffles should have been stored in a sealed bag in the freezer and were not.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-12 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, and interview the facility failed to inform a resident's responsible party of a resident's change in condition for 1 (#1) of 3 (#1, #2, #3) sampled residents. The facility failed to notify Resident #1's responsible party of the initiation of a medication. Findings: Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed an admit date of 08/09/2024 and a re-admission date of 01/15/2026 with diagnoses of but not limited to hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side, bipolar II disorder, type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications, schizoaffective disorder bipolar type, generalized anxiety disorder, unspecified convulsions, unspecified conjunctivitis, contracture to left hip, and pressure ulcer sacral region. Review of Resident #1 Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS (Brief Interview Mental Status) score of 9 indicating moderately impaired cognition. Review of Resident #1's June 2025 Physician's Orders revealed and order for Depakote oral…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-04-03 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor 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
Based on surveillance video and interviews, the facility failed to treat and care for each resident in a manner that promotes dignity and enhancement of his or her quality of life for 1 (#1) resident of 3 (#1, #2, #3) residents reviewed for abuse. S6 CNA (Certified Nurse Assistant) provided care to Resident #1 in a hurried manner, spoke to Resident #1 in a disrespectful manner and talked to other staff about Resident #1. The facility implemented corrective actions which were completed prior to the State Agency's investigation entry on 03/31/2025. It was determined to be a Past Noncompliance Citation. Findings: Review of Resident #1's room surveillance video on 04/01/2025 at 3:00 p.m. provided by Resident #1's family memeber's cellphone with Resident #1's family member who was present revealed: Surveillance video clip started on 02/12/2025 at 2:04 p.m. with a duration of about 5 minutes. At the start of the video S6 CNA walked passed the camera and stated; Just nothing else better to do; Just nothing else better to do. S8 CNA moved the overbed table and attempted to try to remove the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-04-03 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely 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 record reviews, surveillance video review and interviews, the facility failed to implement policies and procedures to ensure an allegation of abuse was reported to administration in a timely manner per the facility's policy for 1 (#1) of 3 (#1, #2, #3) residents reviewed for abuse. S7 CNA (Certified Nurse Assistant) failed to recognize and report physical and verbal abuse during incontinent care provided by S6 CNA. The facility implemented corrective actions which were completed prior to the State Agency's investigation entry on 03/31/2025. It was determined to be a Past Noncompliance Citation. Findings: Review of facility's Abuse/Neglect Policy with a revision date of 03/20/2025 revealed in part: Purpose: The purpose of the Abuse/Neglect policy is to comply with the seven-step approach to abuse and neglect detection and prevention. Policy: It is the policy of the facility that each resident will be free from abuse. This facility will not condone any form of resident abuse. Each resident residing in this facility has the right to be free from verbal, sexual, mental and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-12-04 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — patternEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary medications for 1 (#52) out of 5 (#15, #20, #26, #52, #88) residents reviewed for unnecessary meds. The facility failed to monitor Resident #52's edema while receiving a diuretic. Findings: Review of Resident #52's medical records revealed admit date of 12/01/2023 with the following diagnoses, including in part: chronic pulmonary edema and chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure. Review of Resident #52's Physician's Orders revealed an order dated 08/01/2024 for Furosemide Tablet 40mg (milligram). Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day. Review of Resident #52's November 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) failed to reveal monitoring for edema. During an interview on 12/04/2024 at 10:32 a.m. S4 LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) confirmed Resident #52 was receiving a diuretic. S4 LPN further reported she was unable to provide documentation Resident #52's edema was monitored. During an interview on 12/04/2024 at 10:45 a.m. S2 Director of Nursing acknowledged Resident #52…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-04 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide 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 record reviews, observations and interview, the facility failed to provide residents necessary respiratory care and services in accordance with accepted professional standards of practice for 1 (#52) out of 1 (#52) resident reviewed for respiratory services. The facility failed to clean Resident #52's oxygen concentrator filter weekly and as needed. Findings: Review of Facility's oxygen Tanks: Administration (concentrator or tank) Policy (no date) revealed: Policy: Humidifier bottles, cannulas and O2 (oxygen) tubing will be changed at least once weekly and dated. Concentrator filter should be cleaned weekly or as needed as well . Review of Resident #52's medical records revealed admit date of 12/01/2023 with the following diagnoses, including in part: pneumonia/unspecified organism (onset 11/29/2024), acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/unspecified, chronic pulmonary edema, dependence on supplemental oxygen and chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure. Review of Resident #52's Physician's Orders revealed an order dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$36,566 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $9,110 — penalty dated 2025-04-03
- $8,824 — penalty dated 2024-07-25
- $18,632 — penalty dated 2023-09-05
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 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 20 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KISATCHIE HEALTH, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 76% | since 02/01/2001 |
| MAUMALANGA, HOLLY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 6% | since 03/31/2025 |
| ZIMMERMAN, FREDA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 8% | since 03/31/2025 |
| PRICE, TEDDY | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2025 |
| CENTRAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2016 |
| BOLWAHNN, SHEILA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2008 |
| BROUSSARD, KENDALL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/1996 |
| CANTRELL, JEFFREY LEE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2013 |
| COLVIN, DAVID | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/03/2025 |
| FLINT, DONNIE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/26/2025 |
| ROGERS, DAWN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/1993 |
| SHELTON, JAMES | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/23/1990 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 12 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 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.
About 90% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $2.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 24% 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
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Louisiana Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 195406. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-04, 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.