LESLIE LAKES RETIREMENT CENTER

1355 SIXTH STREET, ARCADIA, LA 71001 (318) 263-9581
For profit - Corporation 150 Beds PARAMOUNT HEALTHCARE CONSULTANTS Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
73/100
#11 of 264 in LA
Last Inspection: December 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Leslie Lakes Retirement Center in Arcadia, Louisiana, has received a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good facility, solid but not without issues. It ranks #11 out of 264 nursing homes in Louisiana, placing it in the top half, and is the best option among the three facilities in Bienville County. The facility is improving, with reported issues decreasing from seven in 2023 to just one in 2024, which is a positive sign. Staffing is average with a turnover rate of 29%, significantly better than the state average of 47%, which means residents are cared for by familiar staff. However, the facility has faced some serious concerns, including a recent incident where a resident was physically abused by another resident, resulting in a hospital visit for injuries. Additionally, there are issues with medication administration and a resident's bed control that has not worked for years, suggesting some areas need attention. Overall, while there are significant strengths, families should weigh these serious weaknesses when considering this facility.

Trust Score
B
73/100
In Louisiana
#11/264
Top 4%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
7 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
29% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 19 points below Louisiana's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$59,670 in fines. Higher than 79% of Louisiana facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 11 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Louisiana. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 7 issues
2024: 1 issues

The Good

  • Low Staff Turnover (29%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (29%)

    19 points below Louisiana average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

Federal Fines: $59,670

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: PARAMOUNT HEALTHCARE CONSULTANTS

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Dec 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to conduct a MDS (Minimum Data Set) admission assessment timely for 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to conduct a MDS (Minimum Data Set) admission assessment timely for 1 (#238) of 6 (#37, #62, #66, #69, #77, #238) residents reviewed for accidents out of a total sample of 26 residents. Findings: Review of Resident #238's medical record revealed an admit date of 11/15/2024. Review of Resident #238's admission MDS dated [DATE] revealed a status of still in progress. During an interview on 12/11/2024 at 1: 45 p.m. S3 MDS Coordinator reviewed the MDS assessment for Resident #238 and confirmed the admission assessment due by 12/06/2024, had not been completed and submitted to CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) in a timely manner after the resident's admission to the facility. During an interview on 12/11/2024 at 5:45 p.m. S1 DON (Director of Nursing) reviewed and reported the admission MDS assessment was due to be completed and transmitted by 12/06/2024 and was not.
Nov 2023 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to accommodate the needs of 1 (#8) of 2 (#4, #8) residents reviewed for environment by failing to ensure Resident #8's bed control was in worki...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to accommodate the needs of 1 (#8) of 2 (#4, #8) residents reviewed for environment by failing to ensure Resident #8's bed control was in working order. Findings: Review of Resident #8's medical record revealed an admission date of 07/22/2013 with diagnoses that included, in part, major depressive disorder, hereditary and idiopathic neuropathy unspecified, morbid (severe) obesity due to excess calories, venous insufficiency (chronic) (Peripheral), polyosteoarthritis unspecified, and essential hypertension. During an interview on 11/14/2023 at 8:23 a.m. Resident #8 reported his bed control had not worked for 8 years and he could not adjust the head of the bed or the feet. Resident #8 also confirmed CNAs (Certified Nursing Assistant) were aware the bed controls did not work. Observation on 11/14/2023 at 8:23 a.m. revealed Resident #8's bed control was on floor at head of Resident #8's bed. During an interview on 11/14/2023 at 10:58 a.m. S7 CNA was in Resident #8's room and reported Resident #8's bed control did not work and had not worked for over a year. During an interview on 11/15/2023 at 11:15 a.m. S10 Maintenance was in Resident #8's room and confirmed the bed control did not work.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and interviews the facility failed to provide services that met professional standards dur...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and interviews the facility failed to provide services that met professional standards during medication administration for 1 (#90) of 33 sampled residents. The facility failed to follow policies and procedures to ensure safe medication administration practices. Findings: Review of facility's Administering Oral Medications policy revealed in part: Purpose - The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the safe administration of oral medications. 16. Allow the resident to swallow oral tablets or capsules at his or her comfortable pace. 21. Remain with the resident until all medications have been taken. Resident #90 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including in part chronic pain and chronic kidney disease. Review of Resident #90's Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 10/03/2023 revealed a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) Summary Score of 15, indicating intact cognition. Review of Resident #90's MAR (Medication Administration Record) revealed the following oral medications had been documented as administered on 11/13/2023 at 8:00 a.m. by S4LPN: Vitamin C 500 mg (milligram) one tablet po (by mouth) Vitamin D3 1,000 unit one tablet po Pepcid 20 mg one tablet po Lisinopril 20 mg one tablet po Multivitamin with minerals one tablet po Norvasc 10 mg one tablet po Duloxetine HCL (hydrochloride) DR (delayed release) 20 mg one capsule po Docusate sodium 100 mg one tablet po Preservision Areds-2 1 capsule po Metoprolol tartrate 100 mg one tablet po Macrobid 100 mg one capsule po Clonidine HCL 0.1 mg one tablet po Observation on 11/13/2023 at 8:30 a.m. revealed a medicine cup filled with 10-12 pills sitting on Resident #90's bedside table. Further observation revealed Resident #90 was in her bathroom. During an interview on 11/13/2023 at 8:40 a.m., S4LPN returned to room with surveyor and confirmed Resident #90's morning medications had been left in a medicine cup on Resident #90's bedside table. S4LPN further acknowledged she did not stay in room to confirm Resident #90 took her morning medications and should have. During an interview on 11/13/2023 at 8:40 a.m., Resident #90 confirmed the medicine cup contained her morning medications given to her by the nurse and acknowledged S4LPN as her nurse. Resident #90 further reported she had not taken her medicine yet because she wanted to get dressed first.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure residents who had indwelling catheters receive...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure residents who had indwelling catheters received appropriate care and treatment according to standards of professional practice and the facility's policy to prevent urinary tract infections (uti) for 3 (#12, #38, #78) of 4 (#12, #38, #78, #246) residents reviewed for urinary catheter and uti. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Resident #12, Resident #38 and Resident #78's catheter bags were kept above the floor. 2. Resident #12, who had a catheter in place, had an order for a catheter. 3. Resident #12's urine quality was being monitored and documented as per facility policy. Findings: Review of facility's Catheter Care, Urinary policy with a revision date of September 2014 revealed in part: Purpose - The purpose of this procedure is to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections. General Guidelines . Infection Control: . b. Be sure the catheter tubing and drainage bag are kept off the floor. Changing Catheters: 1. Changing indwelling catheters or drainage bags at routine, fixed intervals is not recommended. Rather, it is suggested to change catheters and drainage bags based on clinical indications such as infection, obstruction, or when the closed system is compromised. Complications: 1. Observe the resident for complications associated with urinary catheters. b. check the urine for unusual appearance (i.e. color, blood, etc.) . e. Observe for other signs and symptoms of urinary tract infection or urinary retention. Report findings to the physician or supervisor immediately. Documentation: The following information should be recorded in the resident's medical record: 1. The date and time that catheter care was given. 2. The name and title of the individual(s) giving the catheter care. 3. All assessment data obtained when giving catheter care. 4. Character of urine such as color (straw-colored, dark, or red), clarity (cloudy, solid particles, or blood), and odor. 9. The signature and title of the person recording that data. Resident #12 Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed Resident #12 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was readmitted on [DATE] after hospitalization due to uti and acidosis. Resident #12's diagnoses included, in part, bacterial infection unspecified on 10/06/2023, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with diabetic polyneuropathy, anemia, chronic pain syndrome, essential hypertension and osteoarthritis unspecified. Observation on 11/13/2023 at 9:20 a.m. revealed Resident #12's Foley catheter bag was noted to be draining light amber colored urine that appeared cloudy. Review of Resident #12's physician orders failed to reveal an order for Foley catheter. During an interview on 11/14/2023 at 2:30 p.m. S2 DON (Director of Nursing) confirmed Resident #12 did not have an order for a catheter and should have. Observation on 11/14/2023 at 9:58 a.m. revealed Resident #12's bed was in low position and Foley catheter bag with privacy bag in place was touching the floor. Observation on 11/14/2023 at 10:45 a.m. revealed Resident #12's Foley catheter bag with privacy bag in place continued to touch the floor. During an interview on 11/14/2023 at 10:45 a.m. S8 CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) and S7 CNA observed the Foley catheter bag covered with a privacy bag touching the floor and confirmed the bag was touching the floor. During an interview on 11/14/2023 at 10:47 a.m. S6 LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) confirmed the Foley catheter bag covered in a privacy bag should not have been touching the floor. During an interview on 11/15/2023 at 9:55 a.m. S6 LPN reviewed Resident #12's record and reported monitoring for quality or urine was not found. During the interview on 11/15/2023 at 10:15 a.m. S3 ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) reported Resident #12's urine quality such as color and clarity was not being documented when catheter care was being done and Resident #12 had the Foley catheter in place upon return from the hospital on [DATE]. Resident #38 Observation on 11/13/2023 at 9:00 a.m. revealed Resident #38's Foley catheter bag lying on the floor. During an interview on 11/13/2023 at 9:00 a.m., S4 LPN acknowledged Resident #38's Foley catheter bag was lying on the floor and should not have been. Resident #78 Observation on 11/13/2023 at 1:00 p.m. revealed Resident #78's Foley catheter bag hanging from side of bed with lower section of catheter bag and drainage valve touching the floor. During an interview on 11/13/2023 at 1:00 p.m., S4 LPN acknowledged Resident #78's Foley catheter bag and drainage valve were touching the floor and should not have been.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record reviews, observation and interviews the facility failed to ensure provision of necessary care and services consistent with professional standards of practice and the facility's policy ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews, observation and interviews the facility failed to ensure provision of necessary care and services consistent with professional standards of practice and the facility's policy for 1 (#12) of 2 (#12, #19) residents reviewed for Respiratory Care. The facility failed to ensure: 1) Resident #12's oxygen tubing and humidification bottle were labeled with date they were changed. 2) There was a physician order for Resident #12 who was receiving oxygen. Findings: Review of Oxygen Administration Policy revealed: POLICY: Oxygen shall only be administered by physician order, except in an emergency. In an emergency situation, oxygen can be administered without physician order, but the order must be obtained immediately after the crisis is under control. All safety precautions and care of equipment shall be performed according to recommended State and Federal guidelines and facility procedures. Humidifier bottles will be changed as needed. Nasal cannulas will be changed every week and prn. Review of Resident #12's medical record revealed an original admission date of 06/07/2023 with a readmission after a hospitalization on 10/06/2023. Resident #12's diagnoses included, in part, Anemia, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with diabetic polyneuropathy, essential hypertension, and senile degeneration of the brain. Observation on 11/13/2023 at 8:55 a.m. revealed Resident #12 was lying to her right side in bed with HOB (head of bed) slightly elevated and O2 (oxygen) on at 2LPM (liters per minute) via nasal cannula utilizing an oxygen concentrator. No date was observed on tubing or humidification bottle. Review of physician orders failed to reveal an order for oxygen. Review of Resident #12's current care plan failed to reveal Resident #12 was care planned for receiving oxygen. During an interview on 11/13/2023 at 12:35 p.m. S6 LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) observed Resident #12's oxygen tubing and humidification bottle and reported they were not dated and should be. During an interview on 11/14/2023 at 1:10 p.m. S3 ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) reported Resident #12 was on hospice and any hospice standing orders for oxygen would be added to the physician orders when a resident started using oxygen. During an interview on 11/14/2023 at 2:01 p.m. S6 LPN confirmed there was not a physician order for Resident #12's oxygen. During an interview on 11/14/2023 at 2:30 p.m. S2 DON (Director of Nursing) reported Resident #12 did not have an order for oxygen and oxygen should not have been placed on Resident #12.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure dietary services were provided in a sanitary environment for the 83 residents served a meal tray from the kitchen as reported by the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure dietary services were provided in a sanitary environment for the 83 residents served a meal tray from the kitchen as reported by the Dietary Manager. The facility failed to ensure food was properly dated and not expired. Findings: Review of the facility's Food Receiving and Storage Policy Statement revealed: 8. All foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered, labeled and dated (use by date). Observation of the kitchen on 11/13/2023 at 8:30 a.m. revealed the following: 1. 3 packages of coconut flakes with an expiration date of 01/06/2022. 2. 1 package of vanilla wafers opened, not sealed without opened dated on the package. 3. 1 package of graham pie crust opened, without opened date. 4. 1 gallon of pickle relish opened in the walk-in refrigerator with an expiration date of 03/24/2023 and an opened date of 07/03/2023. 5. 1 package of American cheese single slice opened, without an opened date in the walk-in refrigerator. During an interview on 11/13/2023 at 9:00 a.m., S9Dietary Manager was in attendance during the kitchen tour and acknowledged the findings.
Nov 2023 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from physical abuse by ano...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from physical abuse by another resident for 1 (#1) of 3(#1, #2, #3) sampled residents reviewed for abuse. This deficient practice resulted in an actual harm for resident #1 (who was cognitively impaired) when on 10/10/2023 at 7:30 a.m. resident #2 physically abused resident #1. Resident #2 (who was cognitively impaired) hit resident #1 in the face because resident #1 was in his bed. Resident #1 was sent to the hospital diagnosed with a nose bleed and a broken nose. Findings: Review of the facility's current Abuse Prevention Program policy revealed the following: As part of the resident's abuse prevention, the administration will: 1. Protect our resident's from abuse by anyone including, but not limited to: facility staff, other residents, consultants, volunteers, and staff from other agencies, family members, legal representatives, friends, visitors or any other individual. Review of the facility's Abuse and Neglect Protocol Definitions revealed the following: 1. Abuse is defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. Instances of abuse of all residents, irrespective of any mental or physical condition cause physical harm, pain or mental anguish. 4. Willful is used in the definition of abuse, means the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm. Review of resident #1's medical record revealed an admit date of 06/01/2023 with a diagnosis of but not limited to anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbances, insomnia and depression. Review of resident #1's MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 08/25/2023 revealed a BIMS (Brief Mental Status Interview) score of 00 indicating severely impaired cognition. Review of resident #1's Comprehensive Care Plan dated 10/02/2023 revealed: Potential for injury related to dementia, at risk for being abused, wanders, and enters others rooms: monitor resident socialization behavior and document, observe for changes in mental status and document, and report any negative finding to the physician. Review of the facility's incident report dated 10/10/2023 7:30 a.m. revealed S4 LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) was called to the dementia unit and upon arriving to resident #1's room found resident #1 lying in resident #2's bed, holding his nose. Resident #1's nose was bleeding. S4 LPN asked resident #1 what happened and resident #1 stated, He hit me in my nose. S4 LPN instructed resident #1 to remain in the room. Review of resident #1's Incident/Accident Nurses Notes revealed the following: 10/10/2023 7:30 a.m. S4 LPN was called to the dementia unit by S3 CNA, upon arriving to resident #1's room, S4 LPN saw resident #1 lying in another resident's bed holding his nose. Resident #1's nose was bleeding. S4 LPN asked resident #1 what happened and resident #1 stated, He hit me in my nose. S4 LPN told resident #1 to remain in the room. 10/10/2023 8:00 a.m. Physician notified, received order to send resident #1 to the emergency room for evaluation and treatment. 10/10/2023 12:30 p.m. X-ray revealed resident #1 had a broken nose. Resident #1 had no recollection of what had happened. Review of resident 1's x-ray report dated 10/10/2023 at 9:12 a.m. revealed the following results: Findings: Fracture of the left nodes of bone with 1 millimeter medial displacement and medial angulation. Right lateral nasal septal deviation. Degenerative changes cervical spine Soft tissues: Soft tissue swelling in the nares. Frontal scalp soft tissue swelling. Sign increased attenuation nasal septum anterior inferiority. Impression: Fracture of the right and left nasal bones with associated soft tissue swelling. Thickening of nasal septum correlate for nasal septal hematoma. Review of resident #1's CT (Computerized Tomography) of brain done on 10/10/2023 revealed the following: Impression: Nasal bone fractures Review of resident #2's medical record revealed an admit date of 04/12/2023 with a diagnosis of but not limited to attention concentration deficit, major depressive disorder, unspecified dementia and Parkinson's disease. Review of resident #2's MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 00 indicating severely impaired cognition. Review of resident #2's Comprehensive Care Plan dated 08/25/2023 revealed; Violence, Risk for related to Psychosis, Depression approaches included: allow for quality time to communicate ,provide reality orientation during waking hours, remove objects from the immediate environment that could be used to harm self or others, provide close supervision and watch for early signs of agitation or increasing anxiety and report, psychiatric evaluation per doctor's order, provide medications as ordered and monitor effectiveness of prescribed medication used in controlling aggressive behavior and assisting to remain calm, monitor for side effects of antipsychotic medication and record. Combative Behavior approaches included: 1:1 supervision for 14 days, approach resident warmly and positively, Provide consistency with direct care providers on all shift, allow resident opportunity to make choices and participate in cares. Do not argue with resident, elicit family input for best approach to resident, social service to evaluate and visit with resident, praise resident for demonstrating desired behavior, monitor and documents resident behaviors, administer behavior medications as ordered by physicians, review drug regime at least monthly and evaluate for dosage reduction and document findings. Review of the facility's incident report dated 10/10/2023 7:30 a.m. revealed S4 LPN was called to the dementia unit and upon arriving saw resident #2 sitting with blood on his right hand. S3 CNA informed S4 LPN of resident #2 standing over resident #1 with his fists balled up and blood on his right hand. S4 LPN asked resident #2 if he had hit another resident and resident #2 stated, he deserved it. S4 LPN then asked resident #2 why did the other resident deserve it and resident #2 stated, he was in my bed and I want him out of my home. Review of resident #2's Incident/Accident Nurses Notes revealed: 10/10/2023 7:30 a.m. S4 LPN was called to the dementia unit. Resident #2 was found sitting in the dementia unit dining area with blood on his right hand. S3 CNA informed S4 LPN of resident #2 standing over resident #1 with his fists balled up and blood on his right hand. S4 LPN asked resident #2 if he had hit another resident and resident #2 stated,He deserved it. S4 LPN then asked resident #2 why did the other resident deserve it and resident #2 stated, he was in my bed and I want him out of my home. During an interview on 10/30/2023 at 3:30 p.m. S3 CNA stated, I was in the hallway and I heard some noise in resident #1's room and when I went to open to door, resident #2 hit me in the face. I told resident #2 to come out of the room and resident #2 went down to the dayroom and another CNA sat with him. When I went into resident #1's room I saw resident #1 sitting on the bed holding his head with blood on his face. I told the S4 LPN and she came and assessed resident #1. Resident #1 was sent to the hospital. Resident #2 was put on one on one supervision until they sent resident #2 to the behavioral hospital. During an interview on 10/30/2023 at 1:40 p.m. S4 LPN reported resident #1 lived on the dementia unit and was resident #2's roommate. S4 LPN stated, I was told resident #2 had hit resident #1 by S3 CNA. I went down and got resident #2 to go to the dayroom to be monitored one on one. When I assessed resident #1, I noticed him holding his nose with blood dripping from it. Resident #1 told me in reference to resident #2, He hit me in my nose. Resident #1 was sent out to the hospital. Resident #1 returned to the facility the same day with a diagnosis of a broken nose. During an interview on 10/31/2023 at 8:00 a.m. S2 DON (Director of Nurses) reported S4 LPN called and told me resident #2 had hit resident #1 by S3 CNA. S2 DON confirmed resident #1's nose was broken as a result of resident #2 hitting resident #1. During an interview on 11/01/2023 at 10:00 a.m. S1 Administrator confirmed resident #1 was hit by resident #2. S1 Administrator further confirmed resident #1's nose was broken as a result of the altercation.
May 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide equal access to quality care regardless of payment source ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide equal access to quality care regardless of payment source for 1 (#1) of 5 (#1 - #5) residents reviewed for therapy services or potential therapy services. Findings: Review of the medical record revealed resident 1 was admitted from home to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, major depression, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, and psychosis. Further review revealed her payer source was Vantage Medicare Advantage (Health Maintenance Organization). Review of the physician orders for March and April 2023 revealed there was not a physician order for therapy. Review of the Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed the resident had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. The resident required limited assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. The resident was incontinent of bowel and bladder. The resident had no falls noted. An interview with S3Therapy Director on 05/09/2023 at 1:15 p.m. revealed resident 1's family member asked one of the therapist if resident 1 could receive therapy. S3Therapy Director revealed the family member was informed that the facility would need to get prior approval for therapy. S3Therapy Director revealed she notified S2Business Office Manager that resident 1's family member would like for resident 1 to receive therapy. An interview with S2Business Office Manager on 05/10/2023 at 11:00 a.m. revealed she was notified that resident 1's family member would like for resident 1 to receive therapy. S2Business Office Manager confirmed she did not send the request for prior authorization for therapy to the insurance company. S2Business Office Manager further confirmed the family was not given the option of paying for therapy services out of pocket if the insurance company denied the services. An interview with S1Administrator on 05/10/2023 at 11:45 a.m. confirmed the Business Office Manager should have sent the request for therapy services to the resident's insurance and if denied by the insurance company, there should have been an option offered to the resident/responsible party to personally pay for the therapy services.
Dec 2022 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, observation and interviews the facility failed to ensure personal privacy for 1 (#33) out of 8 (#66, #10, #83, #78, #11, #33, #45, #36) residents reviewed for ADL (Activities o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation and interviews the facility failed to ensure personal privacy for 1 (#33) out of 8 (#66, #10, #83, #78, #11, #33, #45, #36) residents reviewed for ADL (Activities of Daily Living) care for a dependent resident. Findings: Review of facility's Confidentiality of Information and Personal Privacy policy revealed (in part) Policy Statement: Our facility will protect and safeguard resident confidentiality and personal privacy. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 2. The facility will strive to protect the resident's privacy regarding his or her medical treatment and personal care. Observation on 12/13/2022 at 1:45 p.m. revealed S9 CNA (Certified Nurse Assistant) exiting Resident #33's room. Observation revealed Resident #33 exposed and fully visible to hallway in bed uncovered, revealing resident to be undressed with just an adult brief on and covering her breast with her hands. Upon entering Resident #33's room revealed the blinds were open. S9 CNA failed to close the blinds, cover resident and close the door when exiting Resident #33's room. During an interview on 12/13/2022 at 1:45 p.m. S9 CNA reported she stepped out of Resident #33's room to find staff to assist with repositioning Resident #33. S9 CNA confirmed Resident #33 was undressed and uncovered when she exited Resident #33's room leaving the door open. S9 CNA confirmed Resident #33 should have been covered before exiting the room and closed the door when she exited the room for Resident #33's personal privacy. During an interview on 12/13/2022 at 2:00 p.m. S8 LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) reported the blinds should have been closed and Resident #33 should have been covered when S9 CNA opened the door to Resident #33's room. During an interview on 12/14/2022 at 10:50 a.m. S2 ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) confirmed the blinds should be closed and residents' doors should remain closed when providing personal care for residents.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews the facility failed to ensure that a resident with pressure ulcers receives necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standar...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews the facility failed to ensure that a resident with pressure ulcers receives necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for 1 (#66) of 2 (#6, #66) residents reviewed for pressure ulcers out of 21 total sampled residents. The facility failed to ensure a dressing was applied to #66's pressure ulcer. Findings: Review of Resident #66 Medical Records revealed admit date of 9/04/19 with the following diagnoses, in part: Stage 4 pressure ulcer to left buttocks, muscle wasting and atrophy, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with hyperglycemia and diabetic neuropathy, and acquired absence of right leg above knee. Review of Resident #66 December 2022 Physician's Order dated 9/14/22 - cleanse stage 4 pressure to left buttocks with wound cleanser, loosely fill tunneling with idoform packing strip, then CA (calcium) alginate with silver to wound bed, then 4x4 and dry dressing QD (everyday) until healed. Observation on 12/13/2022 at 9:35 a.m. revealed during peri care Resident #66's wound to left buttock did not have a dressing in place. During an interview on 12/13/2022 at 9:37 a.m. S10 CNA (certified nursing assistant) reported she had changed Resident #66 earlier in the day and the dressing was off and she had not reported it to the nurse and should have. During an interview on 12/13/2022 at 9:55 a.m. S11 ADON (assistant director of nursing)/WCN (wound care nurse) reported the dressing for wound to left buttock should have been in place and was not. S11 ADON/WCN further reported she had not been notified that Resident #66's dressing to left buttock wound had come off.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure 1 (#78) of 1 (#78) residents reviewed for accidents received adequate supervision to prevent accidents/falls. The facili...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure 1 (#78) of 1 (#78) residents reviewed for accidents received adequate supervision to prevent accidents/falls. The facility failed to ensure Resident #78 received supervision while in a wheelchair. Finding: Review of the Accident/Incident Report for 11/2022 revealed Resident #78 had a fall on 11/16/22 on the day shift, her forehead sustained a bruise/hematoma and Resident #78 was transferred to the emergency room. Review of Resident #78s Physician Orders dated 11/16/22 revealed an order to: Keep resident at the nurse's station in view of staff when up in wheelchair every shift. Observation on 12/12/22 at 9:00 a.m. revealed Resident #78 sitting in high back wheelchair in resident room. Resident had padded lap tray in place and resident was leaning forward pushing lap tray away from her body. Observation on 12/12/22 at 11:00 a.m. revealed Resident #78 sitting in high back wheelchair in resident room. Observation on 12/12/22 at 3:30 p.m. revealed Resident #78 sitting in high back wheelchair in resident room. During an interview on 12/13/22 at 2:30 p.m. S10 LPN (licensed practical nurse) reported Resident #78 does try to move the padded lap tray and get out of the wheelchair. During an interview on 12/13/22 at 2:25 p.m. S10 LPN acknowledged one of the interventions following Resident #78's fall on 11/16/22 was to keep resident #78 at the nurses station while in the wheelchair and she failed to do so.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure failed to provide residents necessary respiratory care and services in accordance with accepted professional standards of practice f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure failed to provide residents necessary respiratory care and services in accordance with accepted professional standards of practice for 1 (#70) out of 1 (#71) resident reviewed for respiratory care out of a total of 21 sampled residents. The facility failed to ensure humidifier bottle was changed and dated weekly and the filters were clean. Findings: Review of Resident #70 December 2022 Physician's Orders: 11/03/22 - Change O2 (oxygen) tubing Q (every) week on Friday prn (as needed) usage Observation on 12/12/22 at 9:15 a.m. revealed Resident #70 sitting up in wheelchair with continuous oxygen at 2LPM (liters per minutes) via nasal cannula. Further observation revealed two filters on oxygen concentrator with gray particles noted and humidifier bottle dated 12/02/22. Observation on 12/13/22 at 9:20 a.m. revealed Resident #70 lying in bed wearing continuous oxygen via nasal cannula. Further observation revealed two filters on oxygen concentrator with gray particles noted and humidifier bottle dated 12/02/22. During an interview on 12/12/22 at 9:35 a.m. and observation accompanied by S6 LPN (licensed practical nurse) confirmed Resident #70's humidifier bottle dated 12/02/22 and should have been changed every week and the filters should have been cleaned.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record reviews and interview the facility failed to ensure residents and/or the resident's representative received written information regarding advanced directives for 5 residents out of 6 (...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and interview the facility failed to ensure residents and/or the resident's representative received written information regarding advanced directives for 5 residents out of 6 (#5, #6, #12, #55, #58, #78) residents reviewed for advanced directives. Findings: Review of Resident #5's medical record revealed an admit date of 7/10/2020. Further review of Resident #5's medical record failed to reveal documentation that the resident and/or the resident's representative received written information regarding advanced directives. Review of Resident #6's medical record revealed an admit date of 1/01/2016 with a re-admit date of 8/23/2017. Further review of Resident #6's medical record failed to reveal documentation that the resident and/or the resident's representative received written information regarding advanced directives. Review of Resident #55's medical record revealed an admit date of 9/24/2020 with a re-admit date of 10/19/2021. Further review of Resident #55's medical record failed to reveal documentation that the resident and/or the resident's representative received written information regarding advanced directives. Review of Resident #58's medical record revealed an admit date of 1/6/2021. Further review of Resident #58's medical record failed to reveal documentation that the resident and/or the resident's representative received written information regarding advanced directives. Review of Resident #78's medical record revealed an admit date of 5/10/2021. Further review of Resident #78's medical record failed to reveal documentation that the resident and/or the resident's representative received written information regarding advanced directives. During an interview on 12/13/2022 at 1:22 p.m. S1 Director of Nursing reviewed Resident #5, #6, #55, #58, and #78's medical records and confirmed there was not documentation that the resident and/or the resident's representative received written information regarding advanced directives and acknowledged there should have been.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to ensure a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment in good repair for 5 r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to ensure a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment in good repair for 5 residents rooms and hallway (Hall A, Room A, Room B, Room C, Room D, and Room E) observed during the initial facility Observation. This had the potential to affect the 12 residents residing on the locked unit and 78 residents residing in the general facility. Findings: Observations of the facility on 12/12/2022 at 10:00 a.m. revealed the following environmental issues: Hall A containing rooms A,B and C: 1. 4 ceiling tiles located in the hallway with large dark brown and black fuzzy stains nearly covering the entire ceiling tile with 2 of the tiles bulging. Room A: 1. Room in disrepair with baseball sized holes in the plaster walls 2. Closet door approximately 1 foot up with dark brown stain 3. Bathroom toilet tank with no lid 4. One large brown crawling, roach like appearance insect crawling on the floor 5. Very strong smell of urine Room B: 1. Closet missing a light bulb with and empty exposed socket 2. No pull cord for the closet light 3. Bathroom floor wet and dirty with wet toilet paper stuck to the wall Room C: 1. Closet light with no pull cord 2. Bathroom floor wet and dirty Room D: 1. Closet door missing outer door knob with exposed door knob stump. 2. Dirty diaper in the bathroom floor with dinner plate sized wet area 3. Food crumbs on the floor Room E: 1. Red Emergency plug located near the floor on the wall near the head of the resident's bed with oxygen in use, was bent and hanging out of the wall exposing wires. During an accompained observation on 12/12/2022 at 11:00 a.m. S4 Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) confirmed there was a large brown crawling, roach like appearance insect crawling on the floor in Room A, and the bathrooms in Room B and Room C were wet and dirty and needed to be cleaned. During an interview on 12/12/2022 at 11:05 a.m. S5 CNA reported the process when things needed repair was to notify Maintenance and put it on the clip board located at the nurses station. S5 further acknowledged she could not remember if she had notified maintenance of the needed repairs on Hall A. On 12/12/2022 at 1:00 p.m. an environmental tour was conducted with S3 Maintenance who verified the following observations: Hall A containing rooms A,B and C: 1. 4 ceiling tiles located in the hallway with large dark brown and black fuzzy stains nearly covering the entire ceiling tile with 2 of the tiles bulging. Room A: 1. Room in disrepair with baseball sized holes in the plaster walls 2. Closet door approximately 1 foot up with dark brown stain 3. Bathroom toilet tank with no lid 4. One large brown crawling, roach like appearance insect crawling on the floor 5. Very strong smell of urine Room B: 1. Closet missing a light bulb with and empty exposed socket 2. No pull cord for the closet light 3. Bathroom floor wet and dirty with wet toilet paper stuck to the wall Room C: 1. Closet light with no pull cord 2. Bathroom floor wet and dirty Room D: 1. Closet door missing outer door knob with exposed door knob stump. 2. Dirty diaper in the bathroom floor with dinner plate sized wet area 3. Food crumbs on the floor Room E: 1. Red Emergency plug located near the floor on the wall near the head of the resident's bed with oxygen in use, was bent and hanging out of the wall exposing wires. During an interview on 12/12/2022 at 1:00 p.m. S3 Maintenance acknowledged the housekeeping and maintenance issues had not been fixed and should have been.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 29% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 19 points below Louisiana's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 harm violation(s), $59,670 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 14 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $59,670 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Louisiana. Major compliance failures.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 73/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Leslie Lakes Retirement Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns LESLIE LAKES RETIREMENT CENTER an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Louisiana, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Leslie Lakes Retirement Center Staffed?

CMS rates LESLIE LAKES RETIREMENT CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 29%, compared to the Louisiana average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Leslie Lakes Retirement Center?

State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at LESLIE LAKES RETIREMENT CENTER during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 13 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Leslie Lakes Retirement Center?

LESLIE LAKES RETIREMENT CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by PARAMOUNT HEALTHCARE CONSULTANTS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 150 certified beds and approximately 85 residents (about 57% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in ARCADIA, Louisiana.

How Does Leslie Lakes Retirement Center Compare to Other Louisiana Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Louisiana, LESLIE LAKES RETIREMENT CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.4, staff turnover (29%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Leslie Lakes Retirement Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Leslie Lakes Retirement Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LESLIE LAKES RETIREMENT CENTER has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Louisiana. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Leslie Lakes Retirement Center Stick Around?

Staff at LESLIE LAKES RETIREMENT CENTER tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 29%, the facility is 17 percentage points below the Louisiana average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly.

Was Leslie Lakes Retirement Center Ever Fined?

LESLIE LAKES RETIREMENT CENTER has been fined $59,670 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Louisiana average of $33,676. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Leslie Lakes Retirement Center on Any Federal Watch List?

LESLIE LAKES RETIREMENT CENTER is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.