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

Timber Springs Rehab and Retirement

215 First Street N E, Springhill, LA 71075 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 153 certified beds · (318) 588-8871 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (318) 588-8871 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Sep 2023Behavioral-health or dementia-care citation — no harm found (F0758)
Insights

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

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — 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
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Sep 2023
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
  • its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)

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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 5 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 1 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 1 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
401 11th St NE · (318) 539-1701 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
27 Reynolds St · (318) 539-3199 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
501 S Main St · (318) 731-3234 · Call to confirm hours
Park
400 N Giles St · (318) 578-3909 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 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.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased29.9%17.8%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight2.1%5.2%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%1.2%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%2.1%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms5.5%2.3%6.5%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.2%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury0.0%3.5%3.3%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened22.3%17.9%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication32.2%23.2%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.9%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers6.0%5.6%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control14.8%15.8%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table44.1%22.7%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication2.6%3.1%1.4%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%76.3%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission41.1%28.0%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit19.4%14.8%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days3.682.561.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days3.502.741.80worse

* 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.

10.5%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
0.55U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.24hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.20hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.10hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.55 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 85% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.5%CMS range 6.8–17.010.7%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 dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot 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 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 worsened20.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalizationnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.141.02Oct 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

0.20
RN hours/ resident / day
1.20
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.74
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.14
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.18
RN hoursweekends
Total nursing turnover
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 153 beds and averages 50.8 residents a day — about 33% occupied, or roughly 102 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.14 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.20 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.74 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 2.77 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.29 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.21 to 0.18 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.

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

2
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-03-25)
5
at the previous standard inspection (2025-01-15)

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.

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

  • Potential for harm · E2026-03-25 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to refer a resident with a newly diagnosed mental disorder to the appropriate state-designated authority for Level II PASARR evaluation and determination for 1 ( #5) of 2 residents reviewed for PASARR. Findings:A review of Resident #5's medical record revealed an admission date of 04/27/2015 with a diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder on 11/05/2020. Further review revealed Resident #5 was not referred to the appropriate state-designated authority for a Level II PASARR evaluation.During an interview on 03/25/2026 at 2:00 p.m., S3 Social Services acknowledged a Level II PASARR evaluation was not completed for Resident #5 after new diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder.During an interview on 03/25/2026 at 2:30 p.m., S3 Corporate Nurse confirmed a Level II PASARR was not completed after a new diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder for Resident #5 and should have been.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-25 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview the facility failed to revise the care plan to reflect changes of a resident's falls for 1 (#50) of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. Findings:Review of Resident #50's medical record revealed a readmission date of 06/03/2025 with the following diagnoses which included but not limited to: Bilateral primary osteoarthritis of knee, muscle weakness, muscle wasting and atrophy multiple sites, abnormalities of gait and mobility, dementia, and unsteadiness on feet.Review of Resident #50's Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 06 indicating severely impaired cognition.Review of the facility's Incident Log revealed Resident #50 had falls on 02/18/2026 and 02/21/2026.Review of the medical record revealed Resident #50 was care planned for risk of falls with the most current intervention date of 01/07/2026. Further review failed to reveal the care plan was revised to reflect the falls on 02/18/2026 and 02/21/2026.During an interview on 03/25/2026 at 1:13 p.m. S1…

    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 · E2025-01-15 · 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

    Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive person-centered care plan was developed for 1 (#50) of 26 sampled residents. The facility failed to ensure an activities care plan had been developed with interventions for Resident #50. Findings: Review of Resident #50's medical record revealed an initial admission date of 09/02/2024 with diagnoses that included, in part, anxiety disorder, essential (primary) hypertension, and depression. Review of Resident #50's 12/02/2024 Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) revealed Resident #50 had a BIMS (Brief Interview Mental Status) score of 15, which indicated Resident #50 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #50's 09/09/2024 admission MDS, Section F-Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities revealed, in part: -It was very important to listen to music Resident #50 likes. -It was somewhat important for Resident #50 to have books, newspapers, and magazines to read. -It was somewhat important for Resident #50 to go outside and get fresh air when the weather is good. Review of Resident #50's care plan…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-01-15 · tag F0700 — pattern
    Try different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure correct use and maintenance of bed rails for 7 (#1, #4, #24, #25, #42, #48, #49) of 7 (#1, #4, #24, #25, #42, #48, #49) residents reviewed for the use of bed rails. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Residents #1, #4, #24, #25, #42, #48, and #49 were assessed for the risk of entrapment prior to the use of bed rails, less restrictive approaches were attempted prior to the use of bed rails, ongoing assessments for the risk of entrapment were conducted after bed rail installation, and residents were care planned with specific interventions for the use of bed rails, and; 2. Bed rails were securely attached to the bed for resident # 4, and #25. Findings: Review of the facility's Bed Rails policy (undated) revealed in part: Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. The facility will use appropriate alternatives prior to installing a side or bed rail. 2. If a bed or side rail is used, the facility must ensure correct installation,…

    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 · D2025-01-15 · tag F0636 — isolated
    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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessments were completed and transmitted within the specified time frames for 3 (#1, #5, #12) of 26 sampled residents. The facility failed to ensure: 1. An annual assessment had been completed for Resident #1. 2. A discharge assessment had been completed for Resident #5. 3. An entry assessment had been transmitted for Resident #12. Findings: 1. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed an admission date of 12/12/2023 with diagnoses that included, in part, cerebral infarction unspecified, metabolic encephalopathy, acute on chronic combined systolic (congestive) and diastolic (congestive) heart failure, schizophreniform disorder, bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and depression. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed the following Accepted MDS assessments, in part: 12/19/2023 Admission/Medicare-5 day MDS 12/12/2023 Entry MDS Further review failed to reveal an annual MDS assessment had been…

    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 · D2025-01-15 · tag F0685 — isolated
    Assist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident received proper treatment to maintain and/or improve hearing for 1 (#12) of 1 (#12) residents reviewed for communication and sensory problems. Findings: Review of Resident #12's record revealed an inital admit date of 03/30/2022 and diagnoses including: unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility; unspecified glaucoma; and impacted cerumen (earwax), unspecified ear. Review of Resident #12's physician order dated 11/04/2024 revealed an order for a referral by the ENT (Ear, Nose, and Throat doctor) for an audiogram (a hearing test). Review of Resident #12's care plan failed to reveal a care plan for hearing impairment. Review of Resident #12's medical record failed to reveal an appointment was scheduled for an audiogram. During an interview on 01/13/2025 at 02:12 p.m. Resident #12 reported she had increased hearing loss. Resident #12 further reported she was supposed to see a doctor about her hearing loss, but did not believe an appointment was ever made. Resident #12 reported in Novembere…

    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 · D2025-01-15 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's environment remained free of accident hazards. The facility failed to ensure a resident's TV (television) was positioned in a secure manner for 1 (#12) of 4 (#4, #12, #23, #25) residents reviewed for accidents. Findings: Review of Resident #12's record revealed an admit date of 03/30/2022 and diagnoses including: Unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility, muscle weakness, unspecified glaucoma, repeated falls and lack of coordination. Review of Resident #12's Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 12/24/2024 revealed the resident had severe impaired vision. An observation on 01/13/2025 at 1:56 p.m. revealed Resident #12's TV was positioned in a manner of which not all 4 legs were positioned on the nightstand. An observation on 01/15/2025 at 10:55 a.m. with S6 CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) revealed Resident #12's TV was positioned on the nightstand with one of the 4 legs hanging off of the nightstand and another leg only halfway on the nightstand. During an interview on 01/15/2025…

    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 · E2023-12-06 · 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 ensure documentation of resident rights regarding Advance Directives for 7 (#3, #8, #23, #24, #27, #45, #301) of 11 (#3, #8, #14, #20, #23, #24, #27, #40, #41, #45, #301) residents reviewed for Advanced directives by failing to: 1) Ensure each residents or resident's representative was provided with written information concerning advance directives and/or the option to formulate an advance directive. for Resident #3, #8, #23, #24, #27, and #301. 2) Ensure a copy of the resident's Advance Directives was in the medical record and accessible to all staff for Resident #45. Findings: 1) Review of Resident #3's medical record revealed Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review of Resident #3's medical record failed to reveal resident or resident's representative was provided with written information concerning advance directives and/or the option to formulate an advance directive. Review of Resident #8's medical record revealed…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-12-06 · tag F0655 — pattern
    Create and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was completed within 48 hours of admission for 1 (#301) of 15 (#3, #8, #10, #14, #20, #23, #24, #27, #29, #40, #41, #45, #49, #50, #301) residents reviewed for care plans Findings: Review of record revealed Resident #301 had an admission date of 11/28/2023. Further review of Resident #301's clinical record failed to reveal a baseline care plan had been completed within 48 hours of admission date. During an interview on 12/05/2023 at 2:00 p.m. S3 Business Office Manager/Human Resources/Minimum Data Sets reported a baseline care plan for resident #301 had not been completed and should have been completed within 48 hours of admission date.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-12-06 · 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 record review, observation, and interview the provider failed to ensure an oxygen concentrator filter was placed appropriately in the intake port of the concentrator for 1 (Resident #29) of 1 (Resident #29) residents reviewed for respiratory care. Record review of Resident # 29's physician orders for December 2023 revealed the following, in part: Oxygen at two liters per minute per nasal cannula at night time. (09/18/2023) Change the oxygen cannula, sterile water, and tubing every seven days and as needed. Wash filters from oxygen concentrators every seven days with soap and water. Rinse and squeeze dry. (09/18/2023) Record review of Resident # 29's comprehensive care plans revealed the following, in part: Description- I have history of shortness of breath. I get oxygen saturations checked each shift. Interventions- Administer oxygen per physician order; assess lung sounds as needed; monitor oxygen saturations per facility policy, position upright when possible . Record review of Resident # 29's MDS (minimum data set) revealed the following, in part: Section C showed a BIMS…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-12-06 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — pattern
    Implement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview the provider failed to ensure a resident received appropriate monitoring when receiving antidepressant medications for 1 (Resident #20) of 5 (Residents #3, #20, #24, #29, #301) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications, psychotrpic medications, and medication regimen review. Record review of Resident #20's diagnosis revealed the following, in part: Heart failure Constipation Depressive episodes Record review of Resident #20's physician orders for December 2023 revealed the following, in part: Duloxetine 30mg (milligrams) by mouth every morning with start date of 10/01/2023. Fluoxetine 40mg by mouth every morning with start date of 10/01/2023. Record review of Resident #20's comprehensive care plans revealed the following, in part: Descripton- Antidepressant medication use: At risk for side effects. I have diagnosis of depression. Interventions- monitor patterns of target behaviors, assess for adverse side effects and report, monitor of signs of extrapyramidal symptoms and document . Record review of Resident #20's MDS (minimum data set)…

    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 · D2023-09-20 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from verbal abuse by staff. The facility failed to ensure residents were free from verbal abuse by staff for 1 (#1) of 6 (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6) sampled residents. The facility implemented corrective actions which were completed prior to the State Agency's investigation, thus it was determined to be Past Noncompliance. Findings: Review of the facility's Abuse Prevention Program (revised December 2016) revealed in part: our residents have the right to be free from abuse .this includes but is not limited to verbal abuse .as part of the resident abuse prevention, the administration will protect our residents from abuse by anyone including, but not necessarily limited to facility staff . Review of the facility's Self-Reported Incident Report initiated 8/13/2023 revealed in part: Victim: Resident #1 Accused: S4, Cook Allegation: Verbal Abuse-substantiated Employee S4 [NAME] was suspended immediately pending…

    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 · Past Non-Compliance
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 3 of 52.9+0.1 vs chain
Health inspection 5 of 53.2+1.8 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 5Booker T. Washington Skilled Nursing and RehabilitShreveport, 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 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
BAUDER FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF33%since 04/01/2025
BOULWARE ST JAMES LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF33%since 04/01/2025
STEVEN BOULWARE FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF33%since 04/01/2025
BAUDER, KELLYIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF8%since 04/01/2025
BAUDER, MADISONIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF8%since 04/01/2025
BAUDER, PARKERIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF8%since 04/01/2025
BOULWARE, THOMASIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF8%since 04/01/2025
WALKER, KATIEIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF8%since 04/01/2025
BOULWARE, DOUGLASIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICERsince 04/01/2025
PMG REALCO - SPRINGHILL, LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2025
BOULWARE, STEVENIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2025
PRIORITY MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2025
LLEWELLYN, LAURENIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2025
BRIDGEPOINTE FINANICAL SERVICES, LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2025
INNOVATIVE NURSE CONSULTING, LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2025
PROGRESSIVE REHAB SOLUTIONS, LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 10/09/2025
BAUDER, WILLIAMIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2025
PARDUE, MICHELLEIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 10/09/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 32 rows in the source record cover these 18 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

8 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.

$4.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-9.8%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$339K
Related-party expense6% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 63%Medicare 14%Other / private 23%

This home reported $339K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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

$301per resident / day
operating cost
$9,156per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$274per 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 195353. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-25, 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