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

Audubon Health and Rehab

2110 Audubon Avenue, Thibodaux, LA 70301 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 172 certified beds · (985) 446-3109 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (985) 446-3109 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 10 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

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

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (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
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (22% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
Worth asking about
  • 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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 5 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 1 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
2031 Audubon Ave · (985) 803-8383 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
Walgreens<0.1 mi
1000 S Acadia Rd · (985) 449-2626 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
1175 Audubon Ave · (985) 387-6025 · Call to confirm hours
Park
1445 Martin Luther King Dr · (985) 446-7237 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
1310 Cardinal Dr · (985) 447-9299

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 3 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 1 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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.

Overall rating4★
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 increased12.4%17.8%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight4.3%5.2%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.4%1.2%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%2.1%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.9%2.3%6.5%better 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 injury7.2%3.5%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened10.6%17.9%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication13.3%23.2%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.9%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers6.6%5.6%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control13.2%15.8%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table21.1%22.7%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%3.1%1.4%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine95.5%76.3%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission29.6%28.0%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit22.4%14.8%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.342.561.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.912.741.80typical

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.

11.3%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
33.3%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.23U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.11hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.09hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.04hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 33.3% 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 24 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 0.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 30% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

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

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a 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 SNF11.3%CMS range 7.5–15.610.7%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 discharge33.3%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge41.7%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge29.2%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified87.8%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care 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 worsened9.8%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 hospitalization8.8%CMS range 4.9–14.17.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.361.02Oct 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

0.27
RN hours/ resident / day
1.18
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.29
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.74
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.11
RN hoursweekends
21.7%
Total nursing turnover
14.3%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 172 beds and averages 111.0 residents a day — about 65% occupied, or roughly 61 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 3.74 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.27 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.29 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.15 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.97 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.33 to 0.11 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 22% is below the national median of 45%.

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

Inspection trend

2
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-09-18)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2024-09-25)

Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.

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

  • Potential for harm · D2025-09-18 · tag F0627 — isolated
    Ensure the transfer/discharge meets the resident's needs/preferences and that the resident is prepared for a safe transfer/discharge.
    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 ensure a resident was included in the discharge planning process for 1 (Resident #8) of 3 (Resident #8, Resident #118, Resident #120) sampled residents investigated for discharge requirements.Findings:Review of the facility's Discharge Transfer and Planning policy, last revised in 08/2025, revealed, in part, discharge planning shall be initiated by the Social Service Director/Designee with anticipated discharges. Further review revealed the discharge plan shall focus on the residents' discharge goals and the preparation of residents to be active partners for post discharge care. Further review reveled the IDT would include regular re-evaluation of residents to identify changes that required modification of the discharge plan. Further review revealed the interdisciplinary team (IDT) would involve the resident and the resident's representative in the development of the discharge plan and address the resident's goals of care and treatment preferences,…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure staff wore proper personal protective equipment (PPE) during personal hygiene care for a resident on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) (an infection control strategy that used gloves and gowns during high-contact resident care to reduce to spread of infection) for 1 (Resident #39) of 8 (Resident# 2, Resident #5, Resident #9, Resident #11, Resident #27, Resident #39, Resident #67, Resident #69) sampled residents who required EBP. Findings:Review of the facility's EBP policy and procedure, dated 01/2023 and revised on 03/2024, revealed, in part, EBP required the use of a gown and gloves for high contact resident care activities such as providing personal hygiene care. Review of the facility's current list of EBP residents revealed, in part, that Resident #39 was currently on EBP. Review of Resident #39's Care Plan revealed, in part, Resident #39 was on EBP related to Resident #39 having an indwelling devices. Observation on 09/15/2025 at 9:35AM revealed an EBP sign on Resident #39's room door…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-09-25 · 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 reviews the facility failed to ensure residents did not have cigarette lighters in their possession and/or rooms for 2 (Resident #32 and Resident #79) of 2 (Resident #32 and Resident #79) sampled residents reviewed for accidents and hazards while smoking. Findings: Review of the facility's Smoking Policies and Regulations dated October 2022 revealed, in part, this policy and procedure was developed to ensure the safety of the residents. Further review revealed cigarette lighters were not permitted in a resident's room and would be kept at the nurses stations. Further review revealed adherence to this policy and procedure would be strictly enforced. Resident #32 Review of the facility's Smoking Task Listing Report dated 09/23/2024 revealed, in part, Resident #32 was identified as an independent smoker. Review of Resident #32's care plan revealed, in part, Resident #32 had a potential for injury related to smoking. Resident #79 Review of the facility's Smoking Task Listing Report dated 09/23/2024 revealed, in part, Resident #79 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-25 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on observations and interview the facility failed to ensure clean items in the facility's laundry room were not kept in the contaminated laundry area. Findings: Observation on 09/23/2024 at 4:00 p.m. of the contaminated area in the laundry room, revealed clean mop heads and clean microfiber cleaning cloths were hanging from rods attached to the wall. Observation on 09/24/2024 at 9:10 a.m. of the contaminated area in the laundry room, revealed clean mop heads and clean microfiber cleaning cloths were hanging from rods attached to the wall. In an interview 09/24/2024 at 11:00 a.m., S4Assistant Director of Nursing/Infection Prevention Control Program indicated clean mop heads and clean microfiber cleaning cloths should not be hung to dry in the contaminated area of laundry room.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-09-28 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — pattern
    Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews the facility: 1. Failed to notify a resident's physician of a change in a resident's condition for 3 (Resident #44, Resident #67, and Resident #87) of 25 residents included in the final resident sample; 2. Failed to notify a resident's responsible party of a change in condition for 2 (Resident #44 and Resident #87) of 25 residents included in the final resident sample; and, 3. Failed to notify a resident's hospice agency of a change in condition for 1 (Resident #87) of 25 residents included in the final resident sample. Findings: Review of the facility's Change in Resident Medical Status policy revealed, in part, a facility must immediately inform the resident, consult with the resident's physician, and notify, consistent with his or her authority, the resident representative when there was a need to alter treatment significantly or to commence a new form of treatment. Resident #44 Observation on 09/25/23 at 11:14 a.m. revealed Resident #44's had a border…

    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 · Ecited before2023-09-28 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure: 1. Staff performed hand hygiene per facility policy during catheter care for 1 (Resident #87) of 2 residents (Resident #30 and Resident #87) investigated for catheters; 2. Staff performed hand hygiene per facility policy while serving meal trays to residents in their rooms; and 3. Staff handled soiled linen in a manner to prevent cross contamination of surfaces when 2 Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) (S16CNA and S21CNA) placed soiled linen on the floor for 2 (Resident #44 and Resident #87) of 2 residents observed during perineal care (washing the genital and rectal areas of the body) and 1 CNA(S21CNA) placed items used in a resident's room onto the clean linen cart. Findings: Review of the facility's Hand Hygiene policy revealed, in part, hand hygiene is indicated when entering and exiting a resident's room, before and after procedures, and before and after applying gloves. 1. Observation on 09/26/2023 at 3:50 p.m., revealed S21CNA did not perform hand hygiene before putting on gloves to perform…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-28 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure an adaptive call bell was available for a resident with limited range of motion in her hands for 1 (Resident #44) of 30 initial pool residents reviewed for call bell use. Findings: Review of Resident #44's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/04/2023 revealed, in part, Resident #44 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated Resident #44 was cognitively intact, and Resident #44 was totally dependent and required two person physical assistance for bed mobility, transfer, and toilet use. Review of Resident #44's care plan revealed, in part, Resident #44 had functional limited range in her hands related to bilateral hand contractures. Further review revealed, a goal of Resident #44 will be free of injury and complications with interventions that included placing a call light within reach, assisting with ADLs as needed, and providing assistive/supportive devices. Observation on 09/25/23 at 11:14 a.m. revealed Resident #44's had limited range of…

    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 · D2023-09-28 · tag F0644 — isolated
    Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a new diagnosis of unspecified psychosis was referred to the appropriate state agency for a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Level II evaluation as required for 1 (Resident #47) of 2 (Resident #47 and Resident #18) sampled residents reviewed for PASARR. Findings: Resident #47 Review of Resident #47's medical record revealed, in part, Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #47's Level 1 Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review dated 10/16/2021 revealed, in part, Resident #47 was not diagnosed with a mental illness. Review of Resident #47's medical records revealed, in part, Resident #47 received a new mental illness diagnoses of unspecified psychosis and depression on 03/21/2023. Review of Resident #47's Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/23/2023 revealed, in part, Resident #47 had an active diagnoses of psychotic disorder…

    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 · D2023-09-28 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's careplan was updated following the residents attempt to exit the facility for 1 (Resident #102) of 3 (Resident #88, Resident #94, and Resident #102) residents investigated for dementia care. Review of Resident #102's medical record revealed, in part, an admission date of 08/22/2022 with a readmission date of 01/03/2023 with a diagnosis of Vascular Dementia with Mood Disturbance. Review of Resident #102's Quarterly Minimal Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/19/2023 revealed, in part, Resident #102's Brief Interview for Mental Status Score was 3 which indicated Resident #102 had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #102's Comprehensive Care Plan, with a start date of 08/29/2022, revealed, in part, Resident #102 had a history of wandering and moved around a lot in her wheelchair. Review of Resident #102's nurse's notes revealed, in part, a nurse's note with a date of 09/11/2023 and time of 9:56 a.m. that read is was a late entry for 09/10/2023. Review…

    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 · D2023-09-28 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure proper infection control techniques were practiced to prevent urinary tract infection for 2 (Resident #44 and Resident #87) of 2 residents observed for perineal care (washing the genital and rectal areas of the body). Findings: Review of the facility's Perineal Care policy revealed, in part, when providing perineal care to a female resident the genital area should be washed moving from front to back, while using a clean portion of a wash-cloth or pre-moistened wash wipe for each stroke. Resident #44 Observation on 09/26/2023 at 3:17 p.m., revealed, S16Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) performed incontinence care by wiping Resident #44's rectal area forward into Resident #44's vaginal and urethral area (wiping back to front) three times. Further observation revealed a visible streak of brown was noted on the towel after S16CNA wiped from Resident #44 from back to front. In an interview on 09/27/2023 at 12:11 a.m., S16CNA stated that she should not have wiped Resident #44 from back to front when she…

    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

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to THE BEEBE FAMILY — 48 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 4 of 52.8+1.2 vs chain
Health inspection 5 of 53.0+2.0 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 53.3-0.3 vs chain
Quality measures 1 of 52.0-1.0 vs chain
The other 47 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, per CMS)
1 of 5Gulfport Care CenterGulfport, MS 1 of 5Heritage Manor Of Baton Rouge IIBaton Rouge, LA 1 of 5Heritage Manor Of OpelousasOpelousas, LA 1 of 5Humphreys Co Nursing CenterBelzoni, MS 1 of 5Lawrence Co Nursing CenterMonticello, MS 1 of 5Lexington HouseAlexandria, LA 1 of 5Riverview Care CenterBossier City, LA 1 of 5Southern Hills Healthcare And RehabilitationShreveport, LA 1 of 5The SummitAlexandria, LA 1 of 5Tishomingo ManorIuka, MS 2 of 5Attala County Nursing CenterKosciusko, MS 2 of 5Heritage Manor WestShreveport, LA 2 of 5Highland HomeRidgeland, MS 2 of 5Landmark Nursing Center HammondHammond, LA 2 of 5Landmark Of DesotoHorn Lake, MS 2 of 5Matthews Memorial Health Care CenterAlexandria, LA 2 of 5Myrtles Nursing Center, LLCColumbia, MS 2 of 5Perry County Nursing CenterRichton, MS 2 of 5Sardis Community NhSardis, MS 2 of 5Tunica County Health & Rehab, LLCTunica, MS 3 of 5Clarksdale Nursing CenterClarksdale, MS 3 of 5Copiah Living CenterCrystal Springs, MS 3 of 5Heritage Manor Of Ville PlatteVille Platte, LA 3 of 5Heritage Manor of HoumaHouma, LA 3 of 5J G Alexander Nursing CenterUnion, MS 3 of 5Landmark Of RayneRayne, LA 3 of 5Landmark of Baton RougeBaton Rouge, LA 3 of 5Landmark of Lake CharlesLake Charles, LA 3 of 5Senior Village Nursing & Rehabilitation CenterOpelousas, LA 3 of 5Washington Care CenterGreenville, MS 4 of 5Brandon CourtBrandon, MS 4 of 5Camellia EstatesMcComb, MS 4 of 5Forest Manor Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterCovington, LA 4 of 5Heritage House Nursing CenterVicksburg, MS 4 of 5Heritage Manor Of SlidellSlidell, LA 4 of 5Heritage Manor Of Stratmore Nursing & Rehab CtrShreveport, LA 4 of 5Heritage Manor SouthShreveport, LA 4 of 5Hillcrest Nursing CenterMagee, MS 4 of 5Landmark Of AcadianaSaint Martinville, LA 4 of 5Landmark Of CollinsCollins, MS

Showing 40 of 47; lowest-rated first.

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
ACT INVESTMENTS, LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST15%since 01/01/2010
MEDICO LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF85%since 01/01/2010
DAVID & FELICIA STALLARD CHILD TROrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST5%since 01/01/2010
ELTON GLYNN BEEBE JR. & NANCY DOTY BEEBE IRRV TR UAOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST5%since 01/01/2010
GERARD AND ALISON DANOS CHILDRENS TROrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 01/01/2010
JOSEPH & ALISON SADLER CHILDREN TROrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 01/01/2010
PARKINSON, TONIIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2010
ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT SERVICES INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2010
ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEMS INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2010
PATHWAY SOUTH LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2013
PROVIDENCE CARE LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/07/2020
PROVIDER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2010
TRISTAR REHAB INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2024
BEEBE, BOBBYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 12/11/2021
BEEBE, ELTONIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2010
LAROSE, CHRISTINEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/29/2021
LEBLANC, ROBERTIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/30/2018
STALLARD, DAVIDIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/07/2020
TALLURI, RAJAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2016
ARIA CARE MANAGEMENT LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 12/01/2022
LTC HIM CONSULTING INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 11/10/2006
PHARMACEUTICAL CONSULTING SERVICES OF AMERICA LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 08/10/2011
QSST TR FOR ALISON BEEBE SADLER DANOS AND HER DESCENDANTSOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
QSST TR FOR FELICIA BEEBE STALLARD AND HER DESCENDANTSOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
VERDIN ENTERPRISES, LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 11/01/2021

CMS files one row per role, so the 43 rows in the source record cover these 25 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

18 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.

$11.3M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+9.9%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$985K
Related-party expense10% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 79%Medicare 7%Other / private 14%

About 79% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $985K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.

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

$242per resident / day
operating cost
$7,371per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$269per 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 195275. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-18, 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.

What to do next