Green Meadow Haven

1110 Ringgold Avenue, Coushatta, LA 71019 (318) 932-5202
For profit - Corporation 157 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
65/100
#73 of 264 in LA
Last Inspection: August 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Green Meadow Haven has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not without concerns. It ranks #73 out of 264 nursing homes in Louisiana, placing it in the top half of facilities, and it is the only option in Red River County. However, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 6 in 2025. While staffing turnover is impressively low at 0%, which is a positive sign, the staffing rating overall is below average at 2 out of 5 stars. Notably, there have been no fines, which is a good indication of compliance. However, incidents such as a resident suffering a second-degree burn from hot coffee and another resident not receiving necessary assistive devices highlight some serious gaps in care. Additionally, there was a failure to properly manage psychotropic medications for a resident, raising concerns about medication oversight. Overall, while there are strengths in staff retention and compliance, families should weigh these against the recent worsening trend and specific incidents of care failures.

Trust Score
C+
65/100
In Louisiana
#73/264
Top 27%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 6 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Louisiana facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 14 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Louisiana. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
11 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 6 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Above Louisiana average (2.4)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

The Ugly 11 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Aug 2025 6 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews and interviews the facility failed to have a system in place to prevent accident hazards f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews and interviews the facility failed to have a system in place to prevent accident hazards for 1 (#67) of 4 (#4, #46, #67, #84) sampled residents investigated for accidents. The facility failed to ensure coffee was served at a safe temperature to prevent burn injuries.The deficient practice resulted in an actual harm on 08/13/2024 at approximately 8:40 a.m. when Resident #67 spilled her breakfast coffee onto her lap. Resident #67 was not aware she had a burn to her left anterior thigh until S6 CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) came to help her clean up and her left anterior thigh had a reddened area with blisters. S5 NP (Nurse Practitioner) was notified and identified the burn as a partial thickness burn of left upper thigh (2nd degree) and burn treatment began. The deficient practice had the likelihood to cause serious injury or harm to all of the 81 residents in the facility.Findings:Review of the American Burn Association Scald Injury Prevention Educator's Guide revealed in part: The severity of a scald injury depends on the temperature to which the skin is exposed and how long it is exposed. Older adults, identified as a high risk group, have thinner skin so hot liquids cause deeper burns with even brief exposure. Their ability to feel heat may be decreased due to certain medical conditions or medications .Scald injuries result in considerable pain, prolonged treatment, possible lifelong scarring, and even death. Third degree burns can occur within 1 second with hot water temperatures at 155 degrees Fahrenheit (F), within 2 seconds at 148 degrees F, within 5 seconds at 140 degrees F, within 15 seconds at 133 degrees F, and within 1 minute at 127 degrees F. All facility policies related to scald prevention were requested of S1 Administrator on 08/19/2025 at 1:34 p.m. and S1 Administrator reported there were no official policies in effect related to scald prevention.Review of Resident #67's record revealed an admit date of 11/04/2020 with a readmit date of 06/23/2025 with diagnoses that included type 1 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia and diabetic chronic kidney disease as well as unspecified polyneuropathy. Review of Resident #67's MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment dated [DATE] revealed intact cognition with a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 15, no functional impairment in range of motion, and set up only assistance required with eating. Further review of Resident #67's MDS revealed most recent assessment dated [DATE] indicated intact cognition with a BIMS of 14, no functional impairment in range of motion, and set up only assistance required with eating.Review of the facility's incident log revealed an injury incident regarding Resident #67 on 08/13/2024. Review of Resident #67's incident report dated 08/13/2024 at 12:42 p.m. prepared by S7 LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) revealed in part: this nurse was notified by CNA of red marks on Resident #67's leg and a blister. Nurse entered the room, Resident #67 was in the bathroom, her left upper leg was visibly red with 2 blisters. Resident #67 said she spilled her coffee on her. Wound Care Nurse, NP (Nurse Practitioner), and resident's responsible party were notified. Wound care nurse measured the burn and applied Silvadene cream. Resident #67 reported she reached up to get her coffee off the bedside table and it hit the end of the table and spilled on her. Resident #67 reported she guessed she was still half asleep when it happened and didn't know it had burned her leg until she went to wash herself off in the bathroom and saw it. Review of Resident #67's Nurses Notes revealed the following notes in part: 08/13/2024 at 11:48 a.m. the nurse was notified by S6 CNA at 8:40 a.m. while bathing the resident she noted a red mark with some blisters. Resident #67 reported she spilt coffee on her leg but didn't think it burned her. S3 RN (Registered Nurse)/Wound Care Nurse applied cream. Will continue plan of care. No other complaints at this time. 08/14/2024 at 10:23 a.m. Resident #67 remains in acute care following incident on 08/13/2024 related to burn to upper left leg. No acute distress at this time. Resident has no complaints of pain or discomfort. Educated resident on importance of allowing coffee to cool down before trying to move it from table. Review of Resident #67's S5 NP Notes revealed the following notes in part:08/13/2024 at 12:00 a.m. seen today to evaluate a burn on her legs. She spilled coffee on her lap this AM and nursing aids noticed later she had some redness on her legs and blisters. She reports not hurting badly and is more concerned with knee pain.partial thickness burn of thigh. Apply Silvadene cream. Wound care nurse to monitor. 08/20/2024 at 12:00 a.m. seen today for follow up on burns on her upper left leg/groin. She spilled coffee on legs last week and had 2nd degree burns on her groin and upper leg. She reports it is feeling some better and doesn't really hurt that much. Bandages have a hard time staying on due to the area and when she does therapy exercises.continue to keep clean with wound cleanser. pat dry, apply Silvadene, cover with Xeroform and dry dressing every other day and as needed until healed. Type 1 diabetes mellitus with other skin complication: complicates burn. Healing rate may be delayed as a result. Monitor glucoses closely. Review of Resident #67 S4 Wound Care NP notes revealed the following notes in part:08/16/2024 at 9:32 a.m. burns (second or third degree) left anterior thigh.tissue painful.no signs or symptoms of infection. Continue with current treatment orders.08/22/2024 at 11:02 a.m. second degree thermal burn to left anterior thigh. Wound status improving. Decrease in size. No signs or symptoms of infection. Continue with treatment order. 08/29/2024 at 11:27 a.m. left anterior thigh partial thickness burn assessed.pt is at high risk of wound incidence due to impaired mobility, co-morbid conditions, impaired blood flow, inevitable effect of aging, scar tissue, and diabetes.09/05/2024 left anterior thigh partial thickness burn resolved. During an observation and interview on 8/19/2025 at 10:50 a.m. Resident #67 was sitting in a wheelchair in her room visiting with her daughter and son-in-law. A single serve pod coffee maker was noted in Resident #67's room. Resident #67 was asked about the burn she sustained. Resident #67 reported she fell asleep holding a cup of coffee and spilled it in her lap. Resident #67 was asked was the coffee from the single serve pod coffee maker in her room or was it the facility coffee. Resident #67 reported it was the facility coffee she spilled. Resident #67 reported she drank about half of it before she spilled it and never would have thought it would have caused a burn like it did. Resident #67 reported she did not realize she had burned herself until she went to clean herself up. Resident #67 reported they assessed and treated her burn and it healed with no concerns. Resident #67's daughter confirmed the facility notified her of the incident and denied any concerns. During an interview on 08/19/2025 at 12:35 p.m. S6 CNA reported it had been a while ago, but recalled when she was assisting Resident #67 in the bathroom she had noted a red area with a blister on Resident #67's hip and notified the nurse. S6 CNA reported Resident #67 told her she dozed off after she drank some of the coffee and spilled it on herself while she was in bed. When asked about any in-services after Resident #67 spilled coffee, S6 CNA reported the CNAs and LPNs in-serviced on ensuring the residents were awake and alert when serving coffee. During an interview on 08/19/2025 at 12:45 p.m. S7 LPN recalled being notified by the CNA that Resident #67 had a red area.S7 LPN reported when she went to assess Resident #67 she was on the toilet and she had a red area with blisters on her hip. S7 LPN reported Resident #67 told her she dozed off after drinking some coffee and spilled it on herself. S7 LPN reported she notified the wound care nurse, the NP and Resident #67's responsible party. S7 LPN reported after the incident the nurses and CNAs were in-serviced on making sure the coffee was not too hot when served. S7 LPN was asked how they ensured the coffee was not too hot and she reported she did not know if any temperatures were being taken but knew the coffee was not as hot as it used to be when it is poured into the cups. During an interview on 08/19/2025 at 12:50 p.m. S12 DM (Dietary Manager) was asked how they monitor temperatures on the brewed coffee. S12 DM reported the coffee was brewed in an industrial coffee maker that heats to 200 degrees F (Fahrenheit) then begins brewing the coffee into an insulated dispenser pot. S12 DM reported the kitchen staff brews coffee the first thing when they get in at 5:00 a.m. and the insulated dispenser pots were put on a stand on a cart in prep for service to the halls. S12 DM reported the CNAs got in at 6:00 a.m. and usually did not pick up the coffee pots to pass coffee on halls until about 6:30 a.m. so the pot has been sitting for about an hour and a half before being served. S12 DM reported other than the temperature reached for the coffee maker to brew there were no other temperatures measured. During an interview on 08/19/2025 at 1:10 p.m. S2 DON (Director of Nursing) reports she started as DON in June of 2025. S2 DON further reported S3 RN/Wound Care Nurse no longer worked at the facility. During an interview on 08/19/2025 at 1:15 p.m. S11 ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) reported she recalled the previous DON talking with staff regarding burns and coffee after Resident #67's burn from spilled coffee but did not recall a formal in-service training with a sign in sheet. During an interview on 08/19/2025 at 1:34 p.m. S1 Administrator reported after the burn incident with Resident #67 the previous DON had worked on a scalding policy regarding hot liquids and resident assessments for serving coffee/hot liquids. S1 Administrator acknowledged there were no official assessments or policies in effect to ensure residents could safely drink coffee. S1 Administrator reported he did not know of any ongoing monitoring of coffee temperatures following Resident #67's burn incident. During an interview on 08/19/2025 at 1:44 p.m. S2 DON provided the working policy and resident assessment regarding scalding and hot liquids. S2 DON reported the policy and assessments had not been implemented and could not provide any documentation of formal in-service training of staff on scalding and hot liquids. During observation and interview on 08/19/2025 at 4:35 p.m. S12 DM started brewing a pot of coffee in the industrial coffee maker into an insulated dispenser pot. S12 DM reported it took about 7 minutes to brew the full pot of coffee. While the coffee was brewing surveyor went with S12 DM to measure the temperature of the coffee in two self-serve warming coffee pots noted on the counter outside the kitchen in the dining room. S12 DM reported the coffee in the pots was brewed and poured into the pots about an hour ago. S12 DM measured the temperature of the coffee from each warming pot after being poured into cups. One pot measured 147.8 degrees F and the other 161.7 degrees F. During observation on 08/19/2025 at 4:43 p.m. the coffee had completed brewing into the insulated dispenser pot. S12 DM transferred the insulated dispenser pot to a stand on a cart. S12 DM then measured the temperature of a poured cup from the insulated dispenser pot to read 164.8 degrees F. The coffee poured from the same insulated dispenser pot was measured by S12 DM an hour after brewing completed and then again an hour and a half after brewing. Temperatures were observed being measured by S12 DM and read 157.4 degrees F at 5:45 p.m. and read 163.2 degrees F at 6:16 p.m. During observation and interview with S13 LPN on 08/19/2025 at 5:04 p.m. Resident #67's left anterior thigh at the groin was observed to have a slightly darkened/shiny scarred skin area approximately one inch in length. Resident #67 indicated she could hardly see the area and indicated she noticed it most when she gets in the whirlpool and only because she knew it was there. During a phone interview on 08/20/2025 at 10:20 a.m. S5 NP recalled going to assess Resident #67 after a reported burn. S5 NP reported Resident #67 reported she spilled coffee on herself but Resident #67 played the burn off and had more pertinent concerns. S5 NP reported once noted and treatment began, Resident #67 became fixated on the burn. S5 NP indicated Resident #67 was anxious and had several issues so she saw Resident #67 frequently. S5 NP reported Resident #67 was a type 1 diabetic so there was some delay in wound healing but there were no complications with the wound or treatment. S5 NP reported S4 Wound Care NP was consulted and followed Resident #67 until the wound healed as well. S5 NP reported she had been coming to the facility for about a year and 8 months and had not known of any other residents being burned with coffee or any other hot liquid.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

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 a resident received reasonable accommodation ...

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 a resident received reasonable accommodation of needs by failing to have an assistive device accessible to 1 (#3) of 19 sampled residents.Findings:Review of Resident #3's medical record revealed an admission date of 05/16/2025 with diagnoses including, in part, spinal stenosis, lumbar region without neurogenic claudication; adult failure to thrive; contracture, right knee; and contracture, left knee.Review of Resident #3's Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Sheet) assessment dated [DATE] revealed, in part, Resident #3 had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 7 indicating severe impaired cognition. Further review of Resident #3's MDS revealed Resident #3 was dependent on staff for all ADL (Activities of Daily Living) care. Review of Resident #3's care plan dated 07/17/2025 revealed Resident #3 had contractures of the right and left hands. During an observation on 08/19/2025 at 10:45 a.m., S11 ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) placed the call bell button on the bed beside Resident 3#'s left elbow. Further observation revealed Resident #3 attempted to move both arms and hands and was unable to utilize the call bell button.During an interview on 08/19/2025 at 10:45 a.m. Resident #3 reported she had not been able to press the call bell button for assistance. During an interview on 08/19/2025 at 10:45 a.m. S2 DON (Director of Nursing) acknowledged Resident #3 was unable to press the button on the call light for assistance due to contractures of her arms and hands.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0605 (Tag F0605)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident with an order for psychotropic medication as needed (PRN) was not subjected to chemical restraints for 1 (#4) of 6 (#1, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident with an order for psychotropic medication as needed (PRN) was not subjected to chemical restraints for 1 (#4) of 6 (#1, #2, #4, #9, #12, and #51) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4's PRN order for psychotropic medication was limited to 14 days. Findings:Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed an admit date of 01/04/2025 with diagnoses of but not limited to Alzheimer's disease, anxiety disorder, and schizophrenia.Review of Resident #4's physician orders revealed an order dated 07/07/2025 for Ativan Oral Tablet 1 MG (milligram) (Lorazepam); Give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for anxiety, end date indefinite. Review of Resident #4's August 2025 MAR (Medication Administration Record) revealed Ativan 1 MG was administered on the following dates/times:08/03/2025 7:20 p.m.08/04/2025 4:13 p.m. and 11:20 p.m.08/05/2025 9:29 p.m.08/06/2025 5:00 a.m.08/07/2025 9:34 p.m.08/08/2025 1:36 p.m. and 7:27 p.m.08/09/2025 8:34 p.m.08/10/2025 8:33 p.m.08/11/2025 5:10 a.m.08/12/2025 4:28 a.m. and 11:01 p.m.08/13/2025 7:47 p.m.08/18/2025 10:26 p.m.08/19/2025 11:40 a.m. and 10:04 p.m.08/20/2025 5:36 a.m. and 1:54 p.m.During an interview on 08/19/2025 at 12:11 p.m. S10 LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) reported Resident #4 had been receiving PRN Ativan for anxiety.During an interview on 08/20/2025 at 3:11 p.m. S2 DON (Director of Nursing) reported Resident #4 had a PRN order for Ativan Oral Tablet 1 MG (Lorazepam) dated 07/07/2025 and had been receiving doses in August.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0628 (Tag F0628)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide written notice to residents and/or their RP (Responsible ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide written notice to residents and/or their RP (Responsible Party) 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 (#4, #81, #89) of 3 (#4, #81, #89) residents reviewed for transfers. Findings: Resident #4 Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed an admit date of 01/04/2017 with diagnoses of, but not limited to, fracture of unspecified part of neck of left femur, Alzheimer's disease with early onset, vascular dementia, unspecified severity, paranoid schizophrenia, and generalized anxiety disorder. Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed Resident #4 was sent to the ED (Emergency Department) on 06/08/2025 for evaluation. Further review of Resident #4's medical record failed to reveal a written notice of transfer/discharge had been provided to Resident #4 and/or RP at the time of transfer/discharge. Resident #81 Review of Resident #81's medical record revealed an initial admit date of 02/19/2025 with diagnoses of, but not limited to to, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, cerebral infarction, vascular dementia, hypo-osmolality and hyponatremia, and atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris. Review of Resident #81's progress notes revealed Resident #81 was discharged to a local ER (Emergency Room) on 04/19/2025 with return to the facility on [DATE], discharged to a local ER on [DATE] with return to the facility on [DATE], and discharged to a local ER on [DATE] with return to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #81's medical record failed to reveal Resident #81 and/or RP had been provided bed hold notice prior to transfer/discharge on [DATE], 05/13/2025, and 05/18/2025. Resident #89 Review of Resident #89's medical record revealed an initial admit date of 04/21/2025 and a discharge on [DATE] with diagnoses of, but not limited to, hypertensive chronic kidney disease, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) unspecified, and hemiplegia unspecified affecting right dominant side. Review of Resident #89's 07/10/2025 Nurses Notes revealed Resident #89 was to be admitted to ________Rehab Center and was transported to the rehab. Review of Resident #89's medical record failed to reveal Resident #89 or RP had been provided bed hold notice prior to discharge on [DATE]. During an interview on 08/19/2025 at 9:30 a.m. S8 MDS (Minimum Data Set) Coordinator reported bed hold notifications are not sent with residents or resident's RP upon discharge/transfer. During an interview on 08/20/2025 at 10:00 a.m. S1 Administrator reported the Bed Hold notice was not being provided to residents' and/or their RP at transfer/discharge.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was implemented for 1 (#16) of 1 (#16) re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was implemented for 1 (#16) of 1 (#16) resident reviewed for urinary catheter. The facility failed to ensure Resident #16 received a referral appointment to Urology. Findings: Review of Resident #16's medical record revealed an admission date of 06/09/2025 with diagnoses, which included in part, displaced intertrochanteric fracture of left femur, Type 2 diabetes and generalized anxiety disorder.Review of Resident #16's admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment dated [DATE] revealed in part, Resident #1 had a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of 11, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. Further review of Resident #16's admission MDS revealed Resident #16 had an indwelling catheter in place. Review of Resident #16's written physician's orders revealed an order by S5NP (Nurse Practitioner) dated 06/30/2025 which read in part: Refer to Urology; Diagnosis: acute urinary retention. Review of Resident #16's medical record revealed a visit summary dated 06/30/2025 by S5NP which read in part: . seen today for evaluation of urinary retention.over the weekend, Resident #16 required another Foley catheter placement last night. Plan: Resident #16 experienced altered mental status and confusion, possibly related to urinary retention. Refer to Urology for further evaluation before attempting another voiding trial due to previous failure. Further review of Resident #16's medical record failed to reveal Urology referral appointment had been scheduled. During an interview on 08/20/2025 at 9:00 a.m., S9Ward Clerk reported she was responsible for scheduling referral appointments. S9Ward Clerk acknowledged Resident #16 had not been referred to Urology. During an interview on 08/20/2025 at 8:50 a.m., Resident #16 reported foley catheter was re-inserted a few months ago and S5NP was referring her to Urology. Resident #16 further reported the facility had not notified her of an Urology appointment. During an interview on 08/20/2025 at 9:50 a.m., S2DON (Director of Nursing) acknowledged Resident #16 had an order for a referral to Urology dated 06/30/2025 related to urinary retention. S2DON further acknowledged Resident #16 had not been scheduled an appointment to Urology and should have been.
CONCERN (E)

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

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to electronically submit Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report 1705D for Fiscal Year Quarter 2 2025 (January 1 - March 31). Finding...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to electronically submit Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report 1705D for Fiscal Year Quarter 2 2025 (January 1 - March 31). Findings: Review of the facility's Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report 1705D Fiscal Year (FY) Quarter 2 2025 (January 1 - March 31) revealed the facility failed to submit staffing data for the quarter.During an interview on 08/19/2025 at 3:15 p.m. S1 Administrator acknowledged the PBJ Staffing Data Report 1705D for FY Quarter 2 (January 1 - March 31) was not submitted and should have been.
Jul 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record reviews and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' drug regimens were free of unnecessary medications for 5 (#17, #34, #41, #44, #382) out of 26 total sampled residents. T...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' drug regimens were free of unnecessary medications for 5 (#17, #34, #41, #44, #382) out of 26 total sampled residents. The facility failed to adequately monitor Residents #17, #34, #41, #44, and #382 for edema while receiving a diuretic. The facility failed to adequately monitor Resident #17 for bleeding while receiving an anticoagulant. Findings: Resident #17 Review of Resident #17's medical record revealed an admit date of 07/21/2016 with a re-admit date of 02/02/2024. Further review of Resident #17's medical record revealed the following diagnoses, in part: congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, and chronic atrial fibrillation. Review of Resident #17's physician's orders revealed an order dated 06/07/24 for Furosemide 20 mg (milligram) give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day. Further review of Resident #17's physician's orders revealed an order dated 06/24/2024 for Xarelto 20 mg give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime. Review of Resident #17's July 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) failed to reveal documentation of monitoring for edema while receiving a diuretic. Further review of Resident #17's July 2024 MAR failed to reveal documentation of monitoring for bleeding while receiving an anticoagulant. Resident #34 Review of Resident #34's medical record revealed an admit date of 01/04/2017 with a re-admit date on 12/14/2022. Further review of Resident #34's medical record revealed the following diagnoses in part: heart failure-unspecified and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Review of Resident #34's physician's orders revealed an order dated 05/15/2023 for Acetazolamide 250 mg give 1 tablet by mouth three times a day. Review of Resident #34's MAR failed to reveal documentation of monitoring for edema while receiving a diuretic. Resident #41 Review of Resident #41's medical records revealed an admit date of 02/25/2024 with the following diagnoses, in part: cerebral infarction/unspecified, unspecified systolic (congestive) heart failure, and essential hypertension. Review of Resident #41's comprehensive care plan revealed - I have CHF (congestive heart failure)- evaluate me for excessive fluid retention. Review of Resident #41's physician's orders revealed an order dated 11/23/2020 - Furosemide tab 20 mg, give 20 mg via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube one time a day related to systolic congestive heart failure. Review of Resident #41's July MAR failed to reveal documentation of monitoring for edema while receiving a diuretic. Resident #44 Review of Resident #44's medical records revealed an admit date of 10/19/2020. Diagnoses include but not limited to chronic pain syndrome, type 2 diabetes, major depressive disorder, and heart failure. Review of Resident #44's July 2024 physician orders revealed an order dated 07/01/2024 for Furosemide Tab 20 mg. Give 1 tablet orally one time a day related to heart failure, unspecified. Review of Resident #44's July 2024 MAR failed to reveal documentation of monitoring for edema while receiving a diuretic. Resident #382 Review of Resident #382's medical records revealed an admit date of 01/15/2021 with the following diagnoses, in part: heart failure/unspecified, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy/unspecified, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease/unspecified. Review of Resident #382's comprehensive care plan revealed - potential for experiencing acute flare up of - evaluate me for excessive fluid retention. Review of Resident #382's physician's orders revealed an order dated 07/19/2024 for Bumetanide tablet 1mg give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for fluid retention related to heart failure unspecified. Review of Resident #382's July MAR failed to reveal documentation of monitoring for edema while receiving a diuretic. During an interview on 07/23/2024 at 4:00 p.m. S2 DON (Director of Nursing) acknowledged she is unable to produce documentation that Residents #17, #34, #41, #44 and #382 were monitored for edema and Resident #17 was monitored for bleeding for the month of July 2024. S2 DON further acknowledged if there is no documentation in the MAR it probably wasn't monitored and should have been.
CONCERN (E)

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

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to accurately submit mandatory direct care staffing information to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for Fiscal Year (FY) Quarter...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to accurately submit mandatory direct care staffing information to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for Fiscal Year (FY) Quarter 2 2024 (January 1 - March 31). Findings: Review of the facility Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report for FY Quarter 2 2024 (January 1 - March 31) revealed triggers for the following: One Star Staffing Rating, Excessively Low Weekend Staffing, and No RN (Registered Nurse) Hours. Further review of the facility PBJ Staffing Data Report for FY Quarter 2 2024 revealed No RN Hours for the dates of 01/01/2024, 01/27/2024, 03/10/2024, 03/23/2024, 03/24/2024, 03/30/2024, and 03/31/2024. Review of the facility's weekend staffing patterns for FY Quarter 2 2024 revealed hours of direct care provided exceeded the hours of care required. Further review of the facility's weekend staffing patterns for FY Quarter 2 2024 and staffing pattern for 01/01/2024 revealed RN hours for the dates of 01/01/2024, 01/27/2024, 03/10/2024, 03/23/2024, 03/24/2024, 03/30/2024, and 03/31/2024. During an interview on 07/22/2024 at 3:25 p.m. S4 Bookkeeper reported this was her second week at the facility and she had not had to submit any information to CMS since she had been at the facility. During an interview on 07/24/2024 at 10:55 a.m. S4 Bookkeeper and S3 Human Resources indicated the previous bookkeeper submitted the information for the PBJ Staffing Data Report for FY Quarter 2 2024 to CMS and they were not sure where the information submitted came from. During an interview on 07/24/2024 at 1:40 p.m. S1 Administrator confirmed the previous bookkeeper submitted the information for the PBJ Staffing Data Report for FY Quarter 2 2024 to CMS and acknowledged the information was not accurate.
Aug 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record reviews and interviews the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for 1 (#1) of 5 (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5) sampled residents reviewed for impaired cognition and/or a diagnosis tha...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and interviews the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for 1 (#1) of 5 (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5) sampled residents reviewed for impaired cognition and/or a diagnosis that may increase their risk of elopement. Findings: Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed a readmit date of 05/02/2023 and diagnoses including, but not limited to: Cerebral Infarction, Hemiplegia, Schizophrenia, Alcohol Abuse. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 05/09/2023 revealed in part, Resident #1 had a BIMS (Brief Interview Mental Status) score of 08 indicating moderately cognitive impairment; and Resident #1 independently walks in room, corridor and unit. During an interview on 8/14/2023 at 10:00 a.m. Resident #1 was standing outside of dementia unit, in smoking area smoking. Without prompting Resident #1 confirmed he remembers going to get a beer across the street and getting caught. Resident #1 acknowledged he was in the smoking area (the one everyone uses). Resident #1 indicated he waited for everyone to leave the smoking area and then went through the gate and walked across the road to the store. Resident #1 reported I wanted a beer and knew they (the facility) wouldn't like it, so I snuck out the gate. Resident #1 confirmed facility staff caught me and told me beer wasn't good with my medications. Resident #1 confirmed facility staff brought him back to the facility. Resident #1 indicated he did not fall down or get hurt on his trip to the store. During an interview 8/14/2023 at 11:30 a.m. S1 DON reported Resident #1 was talking to a staff member in the smoking area at 9:10 p.m. S1 DON acknowledged when the staff member left Resident #1 unattended in the smoking area, he left the facility through the side gate. At 9:20 pm. the clerk from the store across the street, called the facility and let them know Resident #1 was there. Facility staff immediately went to pick up Resident #1 from the store. Facility staff arrived just as Resident #1 was about to drink a 40 oz. beer. The beer was disposed of and Resident #1 was brought back to the facility at 9:30 p.m. The Administrator, MD and a friend where notified. Resident #1 was checked for physical injuries and no injuries were identified. Upon his return to the facility, Resident #1was place on every 15 minute checks in his room. The next morning the decision to move Resident #1 into the locked dementia unit was made.
Jun 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, observations, and interviews the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to complete Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observations, and interviews the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to complete Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain proper grooming and hygiene for 1 (#40) of 1 (#40) resident reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to ensure Resident #40 received nail care. Findings: Review of Resident #40's medical record revealed Resident #40 had an admission date of 09/19/2022 and had diagnoses that included, in part, Spastic diplegic cerebral palsy, Essential hypertension, Muscle wasting and atrophy unspecified site, and Critical illness myopathy. Review of Resident #40's 05/09/2023 Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) revealed Resident #40 had a BIMS score of 14, which indicated Resident #40 was cognitively intact. Further review of the 05/09/2023 Quarterly MDS revealed Resident #40 required extensive assistance with personal hygiene. Review of Care Plan revealed: -I require assistance from staff with grooming and personal hygiene. Review of Policy with Subject: Fingernails/Toenails Care revealed: Responsibility: Nursing Assistant or Licensed Nurse Key Procedural Points: 1. Nails can be partially cleaned during bath care. 2. Nail care includes daily cleaning and regular trimming. 6. Finger-nail care will be documented weekly on the medication record for each diabetic resident. Review of May and June 2023 MARs (Medication Administration Record) failed to reveal any documentation that finger-nail care had been conducted. Review of nurses' notes revealed the last documentation of nail care was by S1 RN (Registered Nurse) on 05/15/2023 at 10:07 a.m. noting Clipped and filed resident's fingernails without complication. Tolerated well. Further review of nurses' notes prior to 05/15/2023 revealed documentation of nail care on 04/10/2023, 03/02/2023, and 02/22/2023. Observation on 06/26/2023 at 1:55 p.m. revealed Resident #40's fingernails were long and well past her fingertips and appeared dirty. During an interview on 06/26/2023 at 1:55 p.m. Resident #40 reported she wished her fingernails were shorter and no one had clipped them. Observation on 06/27/2023 at 4:00 p.m. revealed Resident #40's fingernails continued to be long and well past her fingertips and appeared dirty. During an interview on 06/27/2023 at 4:00 p.m. Resident #40 reported she had asked for her fingernails to be clipped and cleaned this morning but they had not been clipped yet. Further reported when her fingernails get long, they hurt. During an interview on 06/27/2023 at 4:08 p.m. S1 RN came to Resident #40 and acknowledged Resident #40's fingernails were long and needed to be cleaned and cut.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0729 (Tag F0729)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record reviews and interview the facility failed to ensure Adverse Action checks were completed at time of hire and then monthly for 6 [S2 CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant), S3 CNA, S4 CNA, S...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and interview the facility failed to ensure Adverse Action checks were completed at time of hire and then monthly for 6 [S2 CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant), S3 CNA, S4 CNA, S5 CNA, S6 CNA, S7 CNA] of 6 employees whose personnel files were reviewed. Findings: Review of S2 CNA's personnel file revealed a hire date of 07/01/2021. Further review of S2 CNA's personnel file revealed no Adverse Actions checks were completed. Review of S3 CNA's personnel file revealed a hire date of 10/19/2021. Further review of S3 CNA's personnel file revealed no Adverse Actions checks were completed. Review of S4 CNA's personnel file revealed a hire date of 01/30/2023. Further review of S4 CNA's personnel file revealed no Adverse Actions checks were completed. Review of S5 CNA's personnel file revealed a hire date of 02/09/2023. Further review of S5 CNA's personnel file revealed no Adverse Actions checks were completed. Review of S6 CNA's personnel file revealed a hire date of 03/17/2008. Further review of S6 CNA's personnel file revealed no Adverse Actions checks were completed. Review of S7 CNA's personnel file revealed a hire date of 06/03/2022. Further review of S7 CNA's personnel file revealed no Adverse Actions checks were completed. During an interview on 06/27/2023 at 11:30 a.m. S8 Human Resources reported the facility had not been performing Adverse Action checks on facility staff at time of hire or monthly.
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
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Louisiana facilities.
Concerns
  • • 11 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 65/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Green Meadow Haven's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Green Meadow Haven an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Louisiana, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Green Meadow Haven Staffed?

CMS rates Green Meadow Haven's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Green Meadow Haven?

State health inspectors documented 11 deficiencies at Green Meadow Haven during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 10 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Green Meadow Haven?

Green Meadow Haven 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 157 certified beds and approximately 81 residents (about 52% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Coushatta, Louisiana.

How Does Green Meadow Haven Compare to Other Louisiana Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Louisiana, Green Meadow Haven's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.4 and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Green Meadow Haven?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.

Is Green Meadow Haven Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Green Meadow Haven 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 3-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 Green Meadow Haven Stick Around?

Green Meadow Haven has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.

Was Green Meadow Haven Ever Fined?

Green Meadow Haven has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Green Meadow Haven on Any Federal Watch List?

Green Meadow Haven 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.