High Hope Care Center
475 High Hope Road, Sulphur, LA 70663 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 101 certified beds · (337) 527-8140 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0568)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (57%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 25% 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 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 fell from 5 to 4 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 | 10.6% | 17.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.0% | 5.2% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 4.7% | 1.2% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.3% | 2.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.4% | 2.3% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger 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 | 7.1% | 3.5% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.4% | 17.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 42.3% | 23.2% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.8% | 94.9% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.6% | 5.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.1% | 15.8% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.7% | 22.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.3% | 3.1% | 1.4% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.3% | 76.3% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 38.3% | 28.0% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 27.1% | 14.8% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.10 | 2.56 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.54 | 2.74 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
51.0% 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 61 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 64.9% 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 57 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 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 43% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 22% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| 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 | 51.0%CMS range 39.5–62.6 | 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 | 10.0%CMS range 7.0–15.2 | 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 | 64.9% | 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 | 71.9% | 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 | 52.6% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.0% | 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 | 5.0% | 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 | 6.3%CMS range 3.9–10.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.05 | 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 101 beds and averages 90.4 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 11 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 3.30 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.15 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.77 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.92 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.45 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.17 to 0.10 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 57% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-18 · tag F0568 — isolatedProperly hold, secure, and manage each resident's personal money which is deposited with the nursing home.
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 provide quarterly statements for resident personal funds accounts for 1 (#17) resident out of 5 residents reviewed for personal funds. Findings: Review of Resident #17's EMR (electronic medical record) revealed an admit date of 08/10/2023 with diagnoses that included major depressive disorder, panic disorder and sleep apnea. Further review revealed she was her own Responsible Party (RP). Review of Resident #17 EMR revealed an MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment dated [DATE] that revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 indicating the resident was cognitively intact. On 03/16/2026 at 10:34 a.m., during an interview with Resident #17. She stated she had personal funds in an account at the facility. Resident #17 further reported she had never received a quarterly statement since being at the facility. On 03/17/2026 at 11:15 a.m., an interview was conducted with S2AC, she reported she was responsible for ensuring the resident…
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 · D2026-03-18 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment related to PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) Level II determinations for 2 (#7, #58) out 3 resident reviewed for PASARR. Findings: Resident #7 A review of Resident #7's EMR (electronic medical record) revealed an admission date of 05/04/2024 with diagnoses that included, but were not limited to, unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition, major depressive disorder, recurrent severe without psychotic features, and generalized anxiety disorder. Further review of Resident #7's EMR revealed a PASRR Level II Evaluation Summary and Determination with an issue date of 09/30/2024. Review of Residents #7's comprehensive MDS assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/15/2025 revealed the PASARR Level II status was coded as not indicated. On 03/18/2026 at 10:30 a.m., an interview was conducted with S7MDS who was responsible for resident MDS assessments. S7MDS stated that she was unaware of Resident #7'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 · D2026-03-18 · 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
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals remained locked in stored compartments of 1 medication cart when unattended during medication pass.Findings:On 03/18/2026, review of the facility's Medication Storage policy and procedure indicated Date Reviewed/Revised: 2026. The policy read, in part, All drugs and biologicals will be stored in locked compartments (i.e., medication carts. and During a medication pass, medications must be under the direct observation of the person administering medications or locked in the medication storage area/cart.On 03/17/2026 at 2:51 p.m., when approaching the Hall W nurses' station, Med Cart A was observed midway down the hallway. There was no nurse in sight. Approaching the cart, it was observed that the back of the cart was near the wall of the hallway, with the front face of the cart facing the center of the hallway and providing access to the drawers of the cart. No nurse attended the cart or was within line of sight of the cart. The locking mechanism for the drawers was protruding…
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 before2026-03-18 · 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and review of the facility's policy and procedures, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service, and ensure sanitary conditions were maintained in the kitchen as evidenced by: bulk items, juice, and snacks stored without the used by/expiration date, and without the date the items were delivered and/or opened; andbuildup of grime and water stains on bottom shelf of a food preparation table and dish covers storage rack. This deficient practice had a potential to affect 90 residents who consumed food from the kitchen. Findings: 1. On 03/16/2026, a review of the facility's policy titled, Storage of Food and Non-Food Items with last reviewed date of 02/27/2026, read in part, Policy: All food or non-food items are stored in a safe and sanitary manner .Procedure: 1. Dry Storage .E. Food items are marked with the date of delivery as they are stored. Boxes, cans and bags are marked individually.On 03/16/2026 at 8:56 a.m., a tour of the dry…
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 · D2026-03-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program by failing to ensure laundry staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) while sorting soiled laundry to prevent the spread of infection.Findings:A review of the facility's policy titled Laundry and Bedding, Soiled, last reviewed 01/27/2026, read as follows; Onsite Laundry Processing 1. Hand hygiene products, as well as appropriate PPE (i.e., gloves and gowns) are available and used while sorting and handling contaminated linens.During a tour of the facility's laundry room on 03/17/2026 at 2:05 p.m., S4LS, a laundry staff member, was observed sorting visibly soiled laundry. At that time, S4LS was not wearing a disposable gown. He confirmed that the laundry was from residents and was soiled. S4LS further acknowledged that a disposable gown should have been worn while sorting soiled resident laundry but was not.On 03/17/2026 at 2:07 p.m., an interview was conducted with the housekeeping and laundry supervisor identified as S5HS, who affirmed that…
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 · D2025-07-09 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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 notify the State's Long-Term Care Ombudsman of emergency transfers in writing for 1 (#1) of 3 (#1, #2, #3) sampled residents reviewed for transfer and discharge requirements. Findings: Review of Resident #1's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed, in part, Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review of the EMR revealed Resident #1 had an emergency transfer to a local hospital on [DATE]. Review of the facility's Ombudsman notification list of emergency transfers dated 03/01/2025-03/31/2025, Resident #1's transfer on 03/04/2025 was not listed and there was no further evidence the Ombudsman had been notified of the transfer. On 07/09/2025 at 12:30 p.m., a concurrent records review and interview was conducted with S1SSD (Social Services Director). S1SSD confirmed that the accuracy of the State's Long-Term Care Ombudsman list of emergency transfers was her responsibility. S1SSD reviewed Resident #1's EMR and confirmed she had an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-02-19 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — patternProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
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 that residents who required dialysis received such services consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 (Resident #25) out of 1 (Resident #25) residents reviewed for dialysis services by failing to collaborate with the dialysis provider through dialysis communication forms. Findings: On 02/19/2025, a review of the facility's policy titled Hemodialysis, last reviewed January 2025, indicated; The facility will assure that each resident receives care and services for the provision of hemodialysis consistent with professional standards of practice. This will include: the ongoing assessment of the resident's condition and monitoring for complications before and after dialysis treatments received at a certified dialysis facility. A review of Resident #25's medical record revealed an admission date of 10/14/2020 with diagnosis that include, in part but not limited to; end stage renal disease, metabolic encephalopathy, and acute on chronic diastolic congestive heart failure. A review of Resident #25'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 · D2025-02-19 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to refer residents with a newly diagnosed mental disorder to the appropriate state-designated authority for Level II PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) evaluation and determination for 1 (#36) out of 3(#31, #36, #53) sampled residents investigated for PASARR in a final sample of 33 residents. Findings: On 02/19/2025, a review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Assessment - Coordination with PASARR Program last reviewed January 2025, indicated 1. Negative Level I Screen permits admission to proceed and ends the PASARR process unless a possible serious mental disorder or intellectual disability arises later. 9. Any resident who exhibits a newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition will be referred promptly to the state mental health or intellectual disability authority for a level II resident review. A review of Resident #36's record revealed an admission date of 02/09/2022…
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 · D2024-02-20 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the State Long Term Care Ombudsman of facility-initiated transfers for 1 (Resident #73) out of 3 (#17, #56, #73) sampled residents. The deficient practice has the potential to affect a census of 92. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Discharge the Resident, read in part, #5. For each emergency to the hospital, the SSD (Social Service Designee) will report to state ombudsman, in a monthly report and documented on the emergency transfer log. Review of Resident #73's medical record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that read in part; Partial Traumatic Amputation of Right Foot, Level Unspecified, Aphasia, Acute Osteomyelitis Right Ankle and Foot, Metabolic Encephalopathy, Cerebral Vascular Accident, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Major Depressive Disorder and Anxiety. Review of Resident #73's nurses' notes revealed on 01/11/2024 at 1:30 p.m., 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 · D2024-02-20 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — isolatedProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record reviews and interview, the facility failed to ensure there was a sufficient number of skilled licensed nurses, nurse aides, and other nursing personnel to provide care and respond to each resident's basic needs. The facility failed to provide the minimum required staffing hours for 2 of 13 weekends reviewed. Findings: Review of the facility's PBJ (Payroll Based Journal) Staffing Data Report for FY (Fiscal Year) Quarter 4 2023 (July 1 to September 30) revealed the submitted weekend staffing data was excessively low. Review of the facility's staffing pattern reports for the month of November 2023 revealed the facility provided 200.68 hours on 11/05/2023 and were required to provide 220.9 hours. Further review revealed the facility provided 195.71 hours on 11/12/2023 and was required to provide 204.45 hours. On 02/20/2024 at 3:30 p.m., an interview was conducted with S5ADM (Administrator). S5ADM reviewed the facility's staffing pattern for the month of November 2023 and acknowledged the facility did not provide the minimum hours required on 11/05/2023 and 11/12/2023.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-20 · 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety as evidenced by failing to ensure that dietary staff utilized the appropriate facial hair covering while working in the kitchen and food service area. This deficiency had the potential to affect 90 residents who consumed food prepared in the kitchen. Findings: A review of the facility's Policy and Procedure titled Employee Hygiene and Personal Cleanliness was conducted. The policy included, in part: Employees must wear a hairnet at all times, covering all hair. On 02/18/2024 at 8:45 a.m., an observation was conducted of S4DA (Dietary Aide) working in the kitchen washing dishes. S4DA was observed with a full beard and mustache that was not covered. On 02/18/2024 at 10:30 a.m., a follow up visit to the kitchen was performed. An observation was conducted of S4DA as he worked in and around the food service line area as food was being prepared for the lunch meal without a facial hair net covering his beard. S3DM (Dietary Manager) was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CHARLESTON HEALTHCARE GROUP — 4 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
The other 3 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BROUSSARD, ELIZABETH | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | 28% | since 08/01/2008 |
| BROUSSARD, KENDALL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | 28% | since 08/01/2008 |
| BROUSSARD, REUBEN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 28% | since 08/01/2008 |
| BROUSSARD, TODD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 9% | since 08/01/2008 |
| DELRIE, ALTON | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 5% | since 08/01/2008 |
| CHARLESTON HEALTHCARE GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/04/2013 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.0M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 25% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
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
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 195601. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-18, 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.