Vivian Healthcare Center
912 South Pecan Street, Vivian, LA 71082 · For profit - Corporation · 95 certified beds · (318) 375-2203 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- 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
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (31% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
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.
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 | 23.1% | 17.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| 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 | 3.2% | 1.2% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.5% | 2.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 2.3% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.3% | 3.5% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.0% | 17.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.7% | 23.2% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 75.4% | 94.9% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.0% | 5.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.1% | 15.8% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.6% | 22.7% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 6.6% | 3.1% | 1.4% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 8.1% | 76.3% | 79.4% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.16 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 14% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 28% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
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 | not 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 SNF | 10.6%CMS range 6.6–15.4 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 42.9% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 9.5% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.08 | 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 95 beds and averages 56.1 residents a day — about 59% occupied, or roughly 39 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 3.04 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.25 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.78 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 2.66 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.20 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.25 to 0.26 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 31% is below the national median of 45%.
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 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.
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 · E2026-05-11 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and an interview the facility failed to inform and provide written information to residents or resident's representative concerning the right to formulate an Advance Directive for 5 (#4, #5, #10, #36, and #53) of 5 residents reviewed for Advanced Directives. Findings: Review of facility's Advance Directive Policy with latest revision date of August 2023 revealed in part;Policy Statement: Advance Directives will be respected in accordance with state law and facility policy.Policy Interpretation and Implementation:Upon admission, the resident will be provided with written information concerning the right to refuse or accept medical treatment and to formulate an Advanced Directive if he or she chooses to do so.2. Written information will include a description of the facility's policies to implement Advance Directives and applicable state law.3. If the resident is incapacitated and unable to receive information about his or her right to formulate an Advance Directive, the information may be provided to the resident's legal representative. 6. Prior to or upon…
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 · E2026-05-11 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — patternPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure 3 (#9, #13, and #53) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications were free from chemical restraints by failing to: ensure Resident #9's GDR recommendations were implemented andensure Residents' (#9, #13, and #53) orders for PRN psychotropic medications did not exceed 14 days without a rational. Findings: Review of the facility's Psychotropic/Psychoactive Medication Policy revised 01/2025 revealed in part: Policy StatementA psychotropic drug is any drug that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior. These drugs include, but are not limited to, drugs in the following categories: (I) Antipsychotic; (II) Anti-depressant; (III) Anti-anxiety; and (IV) Hypnotic. Other medications which affect brain activity will also be subject to psychotropic medication requirements if documented use is a substitution for a psychotropic medication rather than the approved or original indication.Psychotropic medications are used only when appropriate and at the lowest possible dose to enhance 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 · E2026-05-11 · tag F0628 — patternProvide 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: 1. Provide written notice to residents and/or their RP which specified the reason for transfer, effective date, location and statement of the resident's appeal rights and duration of the bed hold for 3 (#6, #10, and #56) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalizations, and 2. Update the emergency transfer log (Notice of Discharge to the Ombudsman) for 2 (#6 and #10) of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalizations. Findings: Resident #6 Review of Resident #6's medical record revealed an admission date on 11/21/2025 and diagnoses including acute respiratory failure with hypoxia and dependence on renal dialysis. Review of Resident #6's medical record revealed emergency transfers to an acute care hospital on [DATE], 12/16/2025, 03/05/2026, 03/31/2026 and 04/18/2026. Further review failed to reveal documentation Resident #6 or Resident #6's RP was given written notification of the facility's bed hold policies at the time of his transfer's to the hospital on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-03-19 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews the facility failed to ensure a plan of care had been developed for 4 (#13, #37, #50, #52) of 8 (#13, #18, #32, #37, #38, #50, #52, #168) residents reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to ensure a plan of care for side rail assist bars had been developed for Residents #13, #37, #50, and #52. Findings: Review of the facility's PSDs (Personal Safety Devices)-Enablers-Side Rails & Restraints policy with a revision date of February 2025 revealed in part, these devices require evaluation, resident and/or responsible party notification, an order, care planning, and routine monitoring for effectiveness and restraining effect. Resident #13 Review of Resident #13's medical record revealed in part, an original admission date of 03/01/2011 with diagnoses including, but not limited to Parkinson's without dyskinesia and dementia with agitation. Review of Resident #13's annual and state MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessments dated 12/13/2024 revealed in part, a BIMS…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-03-19 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who required dialysis received services consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 (#37) of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis by failing to assess Resident #37 upon return to the facility from dialysis treatment. Findings: Review of Resident #37's March 2025 physician orders revealed: 01/22/2025: Resident to receive dialysis 3 days a week on Monday-Wednesday-Friday at ____ dialysis center. 12/05/2025: Monitor AV (Arteriovenous) shunt pressure dressing to left arm for excessive bleeding every shift upon return from dialysis and remove dressing morning after dialysis. 12/05/2025: Monitor AV shunt site left arm for signs and symptoms infection q (every) shift. Palpate pulse(s) distal to shunt. Note changes in skin color and temp. Report changes to physician. 12/05/2025: AV shunt to left arm. Assess & palpate AV shunt q shift for thrill and bruit. Report concerns to physician. Review of Resident #37'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 · D2025-03-19 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, and an interview, the facility failed to ensure correct use of bed rails as evidence by failing to obtain a written a physician order for side rail assist bars, obtain an informed consent from resident or resident's responsible party prior to installation, and ensure a care plan was initiated with a focus for side rail assist bars for 1 (#168) out of 8 (#13, #18, #32, #37, #38, #50, #52, and #168) residents investigated for accidents. Findings: Review of the facility's PSDs (Personal Safety Devices) -Enablers-Side Rails & Restraints Policy with a revision date of February 2025 revealed in part, These devices require evaluation, resident and/or responsible party notification, an order, care planning, and routine monitoring for effectiveness and restraining effect. Protocols for PSD-Enablers-Side Rails and Restraints I. When a resident is admitted with or is prescribed a personal safety, enabler and/or a type of side rail. The IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) will: notify 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 · D2024-09-25 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews and interviews the facility failed to ensure the resident's physician and RP (Responsible Party) were notified of a change in condition for 1 (#1) of 3 (#1, #2, and #3) sampled residents reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to notify Resident #1's physician and RP when Resident #1 was involved in an investigational incident. Findings: Review of the facility's Abuse Prohibition Policy with a reviewed date of 05/17/2024 revealed in part: Policy and Procedures. Investigation . 6.) Procedure for the investigation will include, but is not limited to the following: Notification to the attending physician and family. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed an admission date of 11/02/2021 with a readmission date of 12/14/2023. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed the following diagnoses in part: Major depressive disorder, delusional disorder, schizoaffective disorder, unspecified dementia, cognitive communication deficit, and behavioral disturbance. Review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 08/01/2024 revealed a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-21 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure necessary care and services were provided in accordance with accepted professional standards of practice for 2 (#37, #54) of 2 (#37 and #54) residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure equipment was assembled correctly by not having a humidifier bottle attached to the oxygen concentrators. Findings: Review of the facility's Oxygen Administration Procedure revealed in part the following: Purpose: The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for safe oxygen administration. Equipment and Supplies: The following equipment and supplies will be necessary when performing this procedure. 1. Portable oxygen cylinder (strapped to the stand); 2. Nasal cannula, nasal catheter, mask (as ordered); 3. Humidifier bottle; 4. No smoking/Oxygen in Use signs: Steps in the Procedure: 12. Check the mask, tank, humidifying jar, etc., to be sure they are in good working order and are securely fastened. Be sure there is water in the humidifying jar and that the water level is high enough…
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 · D2024-02-21 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessments were accurate for 1 (#58) out of 29 sampled residents reviewed. The facility failed to enter an accurate discharge status for Resident #58. Findings: Review of resident #58's electronic medical record revealed an admission date of 06/14/2019 and a discharge date of 12/08/2023. Review of resident #58's MDS dated [DATE] revealed a (planned) discharge with return not anticipated to a short-term General Hospital. Review of resident #58's discharge summary revealed the resident was discharged to another long-term care facility with a family member. During an interview on 02/20/2024 at 3:15 p.m. S2LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) indicated resident #58 was discharged to another long term care facility at her family's request. During an interview on 02/20/2024 at 3:22 p.m. S3MDS Nurse confirmed resident #58's discharge MDS of 12/08/2023 was coded as a hospitalization and should have been coded as a transfer to another…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-21 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews and an interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 (#54) of 21 (#1, #4, #6, #8, #14, #16, #17, #18, #24, #27, #28, #37, #39, #41, #44, #46, #49, #53, #54, #58 and #59) sampled resident's care plans reviewed. The facility failed to monitor resident #54's oxygen saturation level every shift as ordered by the physician/NP (nurse practitioner). The facility failed to have a physician order for oxygen therapy. Findings: Review of resident #54's medical records revealed she was admitted to this facility on 09/23/2023. Resident #54 had multiple diagnoses that included acute chronic diastolic congestive heart failure, acute pulmonary edema, other sequelae of cerebral infarction and dementia. Review of resident #54's physician/NP Progress notes dated 02/06/2024 revealed she was seen and evaluated on this date due to staff reported resident with increased cough and shortness of breath. Resident recently had an inpatient hospitalization for CHF (Congestive Heart Failure) exacerbation with pneumonia. 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 · E2023-08-16 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide 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 — an excerpt from the official record, 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 10 of 25 weekend days reviewed. Findings: Review on the facility's PBJ (Payroll Based Journal) Staffing Data Report for FY (Fiscal Year) Quarter 2 2023 (January 1 to March 31) revealed the submitted weekend staffing data was excessively low. Review of the facility's staffing pattern reports for weekends from FY Quarter 2 2023 revealed the facility provided 127.81 hours on 02/11/2023 and were required to provide 133.95 hours, provided 124.59 hours on 02/12/2023 and were required to provide 131.60 hours, provided 146.91 hours on 02/18/2023 and were required to provide 148.05 hours, provided 143.83 hours on 02/19/2023 and were required to provide 145.70 hours, provided 131.95 hours on 02/25/2023 and were required to provide 141 hours, provided 127 hours on 03/05/2023 and were required to…
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 NEXION HEALTH — 51 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 | 2.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
The other 50 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 50; 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 / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NEXION HEALTH OF OHI INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/14/2005 |
| NEXION HEALTH LEASING, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/15/2002 |
| NEXION HEALTH, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/15/2002 |
| BOLT, BRETTON | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/15/2002 |
| KIRLEY, FRANCIS | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/15/2002 |
| RINER, MARTHA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/04/2017 |
| WILLIAMS, AMI | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/23/2021 |
| HERDRICH, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/01/2012 |
| LEE, BRIAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/01/2012 |
| REID, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/03/2018 |
| RINER, MEERA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/01/2012 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 23 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 73% 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 $355K 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
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 195325. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-11, 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.