Mid City Community Nursing and Rehab
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Mid City Community Nursing and Rehab has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #228 out of 264 facilities in Louisiana places it in the bottom half, and #21 out of 25 in East Baton Rouge County suggests that only a few local options are better. Unfortunately, the facility's performance is worsening, with the number of issues increasing from 9 in 2024 to 10 in 2025. Staffing is rated average at 3 out of 5 stars, and turnover is in line with state averages at 48%. However, the facility has accrued $82,349 in fines, which raises concerns about compliance, and specific incidents include the use of portable electric heaters in resident rooms, creating a fire hazard, and failure to report physical abuse incidents promptly, leading to actual harm among residents. While there are some strengths, such as average staffing levels, these alarming findings warrant careful consideration for families researching care options.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Louisiana
- #228/264
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 48% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $82,349 in fines. Higher than 57% of Louisiana facilities. Some 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
- 25 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below Louisiana average (2.4)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Near Louisiana avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
The Ugly 25 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to implement and maintain an infection prevention and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2025
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's call light was within reach for...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the MDS assessment accurately reflected the resident's sta...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Laboratory Services
(Tag F0770)
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 ensure a resident's laboratory tests were completed as ordered by ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0577
(Tag F0577)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the results from the most recent complaint survey was readily available for resident review.
This deficient practice h...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2025
5 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(H)
📢 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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure allegations of physical abuse were reported to the facility...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(H)
📢 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
Administration
(Tag F0835)
A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to be administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources e...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
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 to ensure nursing staff communicated a significant change in status to the r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from physical abuse for 4 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents with an identified mental health diagnosis were r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
9 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
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 observation, record review, and interviews the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from verbal a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's assessment accurately reflected the residents'...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered plan of c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0806
(Tag F0806)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that appealing options of similar nutritive value were offe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
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 ensure all medical records regarding the resident's code status co...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to incorporate the recommendations from Preadmission Screening and Res...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 store, prepare, and distribute foods under sanitary conditions by failing to maintain a clean kitchen environment. There were 109 facility ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to be administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure reportable incidents were reported to the State Survey Age...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide necessary care and services for the provis...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2023
3 deficiencies
2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL
(K)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the resident's environment remained free from accident hazards by allowing the use of portable electric space heaters...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(K)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure administration used its resources effectively and efficiently to ensure the resident's environment remained free from a...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from verbal abuse by staff for 1 (#1) of 5 (#1, #2, #3, #4 and #5) sampled residents. The facilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 2 life-threatening violation(s), 3 harm violation(s), $82,349 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 25 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $82,349 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Louisiana. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Mid City Community Nursing And Rehab's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Mid City Community Nursing and Rehab an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Louisiana, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Mid City Community Nursing And Rehab Staffed?
CMS rates Mid City Community Nursing and Rehab's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 48%, compared to the Louisiana average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Mid City Community Nursing And Rehab?
State health inspectors documented 25 deficiencies at Mid City Community Nursing and Rehab during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 3 that caused actual resident harm, 19 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Mid City Community Nursing And Rehab?
Mid City Community Nursing and Rehab is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 184 certified beds and approximately 104 residents (about 57% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in BATON ROUGE, Louisiana.
How Does Mid City Community Nursing And Rehab Compare to Other Louisiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Louisiana, Mid City Community Nursing and Rehab's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.4, staff turnover (48%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Mid City Community Nursing And Rehab?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the substantiated abuse finding on record.
Is Mid City Community Nursing And Rehab Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Mid City Community Nursing and Rehab has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Louisiana. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Mid City Community Nursing And Rehab Stick Around?
Mid City Community Nursing and Rehab has a staff turnover rate of 48%, which is about average for Louisiana nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Mid City Community Nursing And Rehab Ever Fined?
Mid City Community Nursing and Rehab has been fined $82,349 across 3 penalty actions. This is above the Louisiana average of $33,902. 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 Mid City Community Nursing And Rehab on Any Federal Watch List?
Mid City Community Nursing and Rehab 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.