HAMMOND NURSING HOME
For profit - Corporation
120 Beds
Independent
Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
73/100
#38 of 264 in LA
Last Inspection: November 2024
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Overview
Hammond Nursing Home has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice, sitting in the top half of Louisiana facilities at #38 out of 264. Within Tangipahoa County, it ranks #3 out of 6, meaning only two local options are better. Unfortunately, the facility's performance is worsening, with issues increasing from 2 in 2023 to 7 in 2024. Staffing is a relative strength, with a rating of 3 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 32%, which is significantly lower than the state average of 47%, suggesting that staff are more stable and familiar with residents. However, $8,018 in fines is average, and residents have reported incidents of serious verbal abuse and concerns about medication storage and food safety, which highlight significant areas needing improvement.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Louisiana
- #38/264
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 32% turnover. Near Louisiana's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $8,018 in fines. Higher than 90% of Louisiana facilities. Major compliance failures.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 17 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.
73/100
Top 14%
Needs review
2 → 7 violations
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2023: 2 issues
2024: 7 issues
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (32%)
16 points below Louisiana average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Staff Turnover: 32%
14pts below Louisiana avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Federal Fines: $8,018
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 11 deficiencies on record
1 actual harm
Nov 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures which assure administering of all drugs and biologicals, to meet the n...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures which assure administering of all drugs and biologicals, to meet the needs of each resident. The facility failed to ensure an insulin pen needle was primed prior to administration of insulin per manufactures guidelines for 1 of 1 (#46) resident observed for insulin administration.
Findings:
Review of the Insulin Lispro's manufacturer insert revealed the following, in part:
Priming your Pen
Prime before each injection.
Priming your Pen means removing the air from the Needle and Cartridge that may collect during normal use and ensures that the Pen is working correctly.
If you do not prime before each injection, you may get too much or too little insulin.
Step 6: To prime your Pen, turn the Dose Knob to select 2 units.
Step 7: Hold your Pen with the Needle pointing up. Tap the Cartridge Holder gently to collect air bubbles at the top.
Step 8: Continue holding your Pen with Needle pointing up. Push the Dose Knob in until it stops, and 0 is seen in the Dose Window. Hold the Dose Knob in and count to 5 slowly.
Review of Resident #46's current Physician Orders revealed, in part:
Accucheck four times a day
Insulin Lispro 100 unit/mL, inject sliding scale four times a day.
On 11/06/2024 at 11:35 a.m., an observation was made of S4RN performing an accucheck on Resident #46, which revealed a blood sugar of 378 requiring 10 units of insulin per sliding scale.
On 11/06/2024 at 11:40 a.m., an observation was made of S4RN preparing and administering Resident #46's Insulin Lispro pen. S4RN prepared 10 units of insulin without priming the insulin pen needle prior to administering the insulin to Resident #46.
On 11/06/2024 at 2:15 p.m., an interview was conducted with S4RN. S4RN stated she was not aware how to prime the insulin pens. S4RN confirmed she did not prime the insulin pen needle prior to administering Resident #46's insulin dose, and should have.
On 11/06/2024 at 1:03 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. S2DON stated an insulin pen should be primed prior to administration. S2DON confirmed she expected staff to follow manufacturer's recommendation of priming the insulin pens as directed.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure adequate monitoring for side effects with the use of psychotropic medication was completed for 1 (#15) of 5 (#15, #51, #63, #66, a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure adequate monitoring for side effects with the use of psychotropic medication was completed for 1 (#15) of 5 (#15, #51, #63, #66, and #67) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Findings:
Review of Resident #15's clinical record revealed a readmission date of 08/02/2024 with diagnoses which included: Bipolar, Major Depressive Disorder, Impulse Disorder, and Dementia with Behavioral Disturbances.
Review of Resident #15's active physician orders revealed, in part:
08/02/2024- Fluoxetine 40 mg 1 tablet by mouth every day; Namenda 10mg 1 tablet by mouth twice a day; and Zyprexa 2.5 mg 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime.
10/01/2024- Seroquel 50 mg 1 tablet by mouth twice a day.
Review of Resident #15's current medication administration record revealed Resident #15 had received the above medications within the last week.
Further review revealed there was no documentation of monitoring for psychotropic medication side effects for Resident #15, and the facility was unable to provide documentation.
On 11/07/2024 at 10:26 a.m., an interview was conducted with S4RN. S4RN confirmed she had not been monitoring or documenting Resident #15's psychotropic medication side effects, and should have.
On 11/07/2024 at 9:40 a.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. S2DON reviewed Resident #15's clinical record and confirmed there was no documentation of monitoring for side effects of Resident #15's psychotropic medications, and should have been.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure drugs were stored and labeled properly in accordance with current accepted professional principles. The facility fai...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure drugs were stored and labeled properly in accordance with current accepted professional principles. The facility failed to ensure:
1. Insulin pen and vial containing multiple doses of insulin were labeled with an open date in 1 (Med Room A) of 1 medication room reviewed;
2. Liquid medications were labeled with an open date in 1(Med Cart A) of 3 (Med Cart A, B, and C) medication carts reviewed; and
3. Medication Cart A and Cart C was locked when unattended.
Findings:
1.
On 11/04/2024 at 12:30 p.m., an observation was made of Med Room A with S5RN, which revealed the following:
1-Lantus insulin pen was opened and undated.
1-Lantus insulin vial was opened and undated.
On 11/04/2024 at 12:33 p.m., an interview was conducted with S5RN. S5RN confirmed all insulin should be dated when opened, and was not.
On 11/04/2024 at 12:38 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. S2DON confirmed staff was expected to date insulin after opening.
2.
On 11/04/2024 at 12:19 p.m., an observation was made of Med Cart A with S5RN, which revealed the following:
1-16 oz. bottle of Docusate Sodium Liquid 50 mg/ 5 mL was opened and undated.
1-16 oz. bottle of Lactulose Solution 10g/15 mL was opened and undated.
On 11/04/2024 at 12:25 p.m., an interview was conducted with S5RN. She confirmed the above findings, and stated the medication bottles should have been dated when opened and were not.
On 11/04/2024 at 12:38 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. S2DON confirmed she expected staff to date liquid medications after opening.
3.
On 11/06/2024 at 8:08 a.m., an observation was made of medication Cart A unlocked and unattended.
On 11/06/2024 at 8:10 a.m., an observation was made Cart A unattended, unlocked, while a resident, staff, and visitor passed by.
On 11/06/2024 at 8:14 a.m., an interview was conducted with S6LPN. S6LPN confirmed medication Cart A should have been locked when unattended.
On 11/06/2024 at 11:20-11:24 a.m., an observation was made of medication Cart C unattended and unlocked.
On 11/06/2024 at 12:09 p.m., an interview was conducted with S4RN. S4RN confirmed medication Cart C should have been locked when unattended.
On 11/06/2024 at 2:00 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. S2DON confirmed she expected staff to keep medication carts locked when unattended.
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 interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, and distribute foods under sanitary conditions. The facility failed to ensure:
1. Food was properly sealed and dated after o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, and distribute foods under sanitary conditions. The facility failed to ensure:
1. Food was properly sealed and dated after opening; and
2. Presence of expired food intended for use.
There were a total of 78 out of 85 facility residents who were provided meals and beverages from the facility's kitchen.
Findings:
Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Food Service to Prevent Risk of Cross Contamination revealed the following, in part;
Purpose: To ensure that all residents meals are cooked, stored, transported, and served using methods that reduce risk of cross contamination and food borne illnesses.
Process:
4. All food shall have a date of delivery and used by the manufacturer's recommendation. Opened product shall be dated as to the date opened and not kept on shelf beyond the manufacturer's recommendation.
During the initial tour of the facility's kitchen on 11/04/2024 at 8:37 a.m., with S3DM the following observations were made:
Cooking area:
1-33oz. bottle of seasoned salt was opened and undated.
1-18oz. bottle of garlic and herb seasoning was opened and undated.
Walk in Freezer:
1-1/2 bag of chicken nuggets-opened, unsealed, and undated.
Walk in Refrigerator:
2-packages of 6 tortillas expired 08/06/2024.
6-16 count of hot dog buns were undated with delivery date.
9-12 count of hamburger buns were undated with delivery date
1-loaf of white bread was undated with a delivery date.
Pantry:
24-individually wrapped cereal expired 09/24/2024.
3-boxes of corn starch expired 03/19/2023.
On 11/04/2024 at 9:00 a.m., an interview was conducted with S3DM. S3DM confirmed the aforementioned items during initial tour, and she confirmed the dates of expired items. S3DM confirmed expired items should have been discard prior to today. S3DM confirmed all items which were opened should have been sealed and dated with open dates. S3DM further confirmed the bread products should have been dated with delivery date and was not.
On 11/04/2024 at 1:28 p.m., an interview was conducted with S1ADM. S1ADM confirmed all expired foods should be discarded appropriately. S1ADM confirmed all opened items should be dated and labeled with an open date.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY**
Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control prog...
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 maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of infection for 3 (#71, #82, and #84) of 5 (#39, #63, #71, #82, and #84) residents reviewed for Infection Control. The facility failed to:
1.) Identify Residents who required Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP)
2.) Ensure staff adhered to Enhanced Barrier Precautions while providing direct care to indwelling devices
Findings:
Resident #71
A review of Resident #71's Clinical Record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE].
A review of Resident #71's admission MDS with an ARD of 10/13/2024 revealed he had a BIMS of 13, which indicated he was cognitively intact. Further review revealed Resident #71 had a venous stasis ulcer.
A review of the facility's Pressure Ulcer Weekly Log revealed Resident #71 had a stasis ulcer to the left leg, acquired on 09/30/2024.
A review of Resident #71's Physician Orders revealed no orders for EBP.
On 11/06/2024 at 9:05 a.m., an interview and observation was conducted with Resident #71. Resident #71 had a dressing to his left foot. Resident #71 stated he had wounds on his left ankle and left toe.
On 11/06/2024 at 10:41 a.m., an observation was made of S4RN providing wound care for Resident #71. S4RN did not wear a gown while performing wound care to Resident #71's wounds. There was no EBP signage on the resident's door and no PPE noted outside the door or in the residents room.
On 11/06/2024 at 2:05 p.m., an interview was conducted with S4RN. She stated she was unaware of what Enhanced Barrier Precautions were. She confirmed she did not wear a gown while performing wound care to Resident #71.
Resident #82
A review of Resident #82's Clinical Record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube.
A review of Resident #82's Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 10/09/2024 revealed the following:
Section K- Swallowing/Nutritional Status
K0520- Nutritional Approaches- B. Feeding Tube
On 11/06/2024 at 8:29 a.m., an observation was made of Resident #82's room. There was no PPE observed outside of the resident's room and no EBP signage observed on the resident's door.
On 11/06/2024 at 11:10 a.m., an observation was made of S7LPN administering a bolus tube feeding to Resident #82. S7LPN did not wear a gown while administering the tube feeding to Resident #82.
On 11/06/2024 at 1:11 p.m., an interview was conducted with S7LPN. She confirmed she did not wear a gown when she administered Resident #82's tube feeding. She stated she was unaware she needed to utilize EBP prior to providing direct care to Resident #82.
Resident #84
A review of Resident #84's Clinical Record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube.
A review of Resident #84's Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 09/24/2024 revealed the following:
Section K- Swallowing/Nutritional Status
K0520- Nutritional Approaches- B. Feeding Tube
On 11/06/2024 at 11:50 a.m., an observation was made of S6LPN administering a bolus feeding and medications through the PEG for Resident #84. S6LPN did not wear a gown while administering the tube feeding and medications for Resident #84.
On 11/06/2024 at 1:20 p.m., an interview was conducted with S6LPN. She confirmed she did not wear a gown while administering the bolus feeding and medications through Resident #84's PEG. She stated she was unaware she needed to utilize EBP prior to providing direct care to Resident #84.
On 11/06/2024 at 3:55 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. She stated there were no residents who currently resided in the facility who were on EBP at this time. She confirmed she was unaware it was required for staff to wear a gown when providing direct care for Residents #71, #82, and #84.
Mar 2024
2 deficiencies
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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from verbal abuse by a sta...
Read full inspector narrative →
**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 verbal abuse by a staff member for 1 (#1) of 3 (#1, #2 and #3) residents reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to protect Resident #1 from verbal abuse by S5CNA.
This deficient practice resulted in an actual harm situation on the evening of 02/20/2024 when staff witnessed S5CNA yelling and cursing profanities at Resident #1, a cognitively impaired resident. S6CNA and S7CNA heard S5CNA yell at Resident #1 If you don't stop coming in and out of that room, I am going to bash your mother f****** head, Get up off the f****** floor. Shut the f***up. Get the f*** up. You are gonna get up by yourself. You're gonna lay in that mother f****** s*** and I'm not going to change s***. I'm gonna punch you in the f****** forehead. Following the incident, Resident #1 approached S6CNA crying and stated I hope that CNA isn't going to be taking care of me anymore. I am scared for my life. She has really shaken me. As a result of the investigation, despite there not being a significant decline in mental or physical functioning for Resident #1, it could be determined the reasonable person would have experienced severe psychosocial harm as a result of the verbal abuse, since a reasonable person would not expect to be treated in this manner in their own home or a health care facility.
The facility implemented corrective actions which were completed prior to the State Agency's investigation, thus it was determined to be a Past Noncompliance citation.
Findings:
Review of the facility's policy titled Reporting of Abuse, Neglect, and/or Misappropriation of Resident Property revealed the following:
B. Policy
3. Examples of Violations:
-Yelling, swearing, scolding or other forms of verbal abuse;
-Threatening a patient for any reason.
Review of the facility's policy titled Prohibition of Abuse, Neglect, and/or the Misappropriation of Resident Property revealed the following:
6. Protection
c. Suspend the employee until the formal investigation is complete, if needed.
Review of the clinical record for Resident #1 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Bipolar Disorder with Psychosis, Major Depression, Cerebrovascular Accident, Anxiety, and Dementia.
Review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS with an ARD of 02/12/2024 revealed the provider assessed the resident as having a BIMS of 5, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment.
Review of S5CNA's timecard for 02/20/2021 revealed S5CNA clocked in for the shift at 2:55 p.m. and clocked out at the end of the shift at 11:01 p.m.
On 03/06/2024 at 11:53 a.m., an interview was conducted with S6CNA. S6CNA stated she saw S5CNA enter Resident #1's room on 02/20/2024 between 7:30 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. and heard her yell at Resident #1. S6CNA stated she heard S5CNA yelling If you don't stop coming in and out of that room, I am going to bash your mother f****** head. S6CNA stated she saw Resident #1 enter her room and push her walker into the bedside table which had an open soda can on it. She stated the soda can fell, spilling its contents on the bed, floor, and on Resident #1. S6CNA stated because of the spill on the floor, Resident #1 slipped and fell. S6CNA stated she then heard S5CNA say Get up off the f****** floor. You are gonna get up by yourself. You're gonna lay in that mother f****** s*** and I'm not going to change s***. S6CNA stated Resident #1 approached her crying and stated I hope that CNA isn't going to be taking care of me anymore. I am scared for my life. She has really shaken me. S6CNA stated she reported the incident to S3ADON on 02/21/2024. S6CNA confirmed the incident between S5CNA and Resident #1 was verbal abuse. S6CNA confirmed S5CNA continued to work and was assigned to care for Resident #1 for the rest of the shift.
On 03/07/2024 at 9:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #1. Resident #1 was unable to hold a meaningful conversation due to cognitive impairment. She stated she could not remember if any staff ever yelled at her, cursed at her, abused or neglected her in any way. She stated she couldn't remember the incident that took place between her and S5CNA on 02/20/2024.
On 03/07/2024 at 10:42 a.m., an interview was conducted with S7CNA. S7CNA stated on 02/20/2024 around 4:00 p.m., Resident #1 was emotional and crying, and began walking up and down the hall with her walker. S7CNA stated S5CNA said to her I don't have time for her s*** today, referring to Resident #1's emotional state. S7CNA stated between 7:30 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. when Resident #1 returned to her room, she bumped her bedside table with her walker which had a pitcher filled with soda causing it to spill onto the floor, bed linens, and on the Resident. S7CNA stated she followed S5CNA into Resident #1's room. Resident #1 was on the floor. S5CNA repeatedly told Resident #1 Get up off the f****** floor. Shut the f***up. Get the f*** up. You are gonna get up by yourself. You're gonna lay in that mother f****** s*** and I'm not going to change s***. S7CNA stated she assisted Resident #1 off of the floor and left the room to get a change of bed linens. S7CNA stated when she was returning to the room she overheard S5CNA say to Resident #1 I'm gonna punch you in the f****** forehead. S7CNA stated she reported the incident to S3ADON on 02/21/2024. S7CNA confirmed S5CNA continued to work and was assigned to care for Resident #1 for the rest of the shift.
On 03/07/2024 at 12:38 p.m., an interview was conducted with S3ADON. S3ADON stated she was made aware of the incident on the morning of 02/21/2024. She stated she immediately informed S1ADM. S3ADON stated when she asked Resident #1 about the incident, the resident did not remember anything due to her impaired cognitive status. S3ADON stated S5CNA was informed on 02/21/2024 not to return to work due to an investigation regarding an allegation of abuse on 02/20/2024. S3ADON stated if she had been made aware at the time of the incident of the allegation of verbal abuse between S5CNA and Resident #1, she would have sent S5CNA home at that time. S6CNA confirmed S5CNA continued to work and was assigned to care for Resident #1 for the rest of the shift. S3ADON confirmed the incident between S5CNA and Resident #1 was verbal abuse.
On 03/07/2024 at 1:34 p.m., an interview was conducted with S1ADM. He stated S3ADON notified him on 02/21/2024 that staff witnessed S5CNA curse at Resident #1 and used foul language on the evening of 02/20/2024. S1ADM stated he substantiated the allegation of verbal abuse by S5CNA to Resident #1 because he received written statements from two credible staff witnesses. S1ADM confirmed the incident between S5CNA and Resident #1 was verbal abuse.
The facility implemented the following actions to correct the deficient practice:
1.
Measures implemented for action plan regarding verbal abuse staff to resident:
a.
Written witness statements were obtained from S6CNA and S7CNA upon discovery of the allegation of verbal abuse on 02/21/2024
b.
S5CNA was suspended immediately on 02/21/2024 pending investigation and ultimately terminated on 02/23/2024. Upon termination, S1ADM reported her to the CNA registry for termination as a result of abuse to a resident
c.
S1ADM entered SIMS report to State Agency on 02/21/2024 at 3:43 p.m. and began facility investigation
2.
Residents with potential to be affected include all residents cared for by S5CNA.
3.
Measures implemented to address problem identified in corrective action plan:
a.
In-services began on 02/21/2024 covering the topics of types of abuse, abuse reporting requirements and timelines, the 7 points of preventing abuse including protection of the resident, abuse violation examples, and the consequences of committing abuse. In-services were completed on 03/01/2024 when 100% of staff had received inservice training related to abuse and abuse reporting.
b.
The facility will continue monthly abuse including the 7 points of preventing abuse, abuse reporting in-services for the next three months.
4.
Monitoring of compliance will include the following:
a.
Facility DON or designee will interview 4 cognitive residents per hall per week for 3 months to inquire if they are being abused or have witnessed abuse by staff. Questioned if anyone had talked to them in a threatening way, forced them to give them money or took money from them, touched them without consent, or if anyone had hit or been mean to them. Any negative responses will be investigated immediately.
b.
Results of these audits will be discussed weekly between Administrator, DON and ADON. Any negative responses will be investigated immediately.
Facility compliance date as of 03/01/2024.
Throughout the survey on 03/06/2024 and 03/07/2024, observations, record reviews and staff interviews revealed staff received training on the facility's abuse policies and procedures, were knowledgeable of the types of abuse and were aware abuse should be reported to administration immediately. Observations were made throughout the survey with no abuse identified. Observations, interviews, and record review revealed monitoring had begun with no further issues identified.
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of verbal abuse was reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, to the facility ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of verbal abuse was reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, to the facility Administrator and to the State Survey Agency for 1(#1) of 3 (#1, #2, and #3) residents sampled for abuse.
Findings:
Review of the State Agency document titled Guidance for Mandated Reporting of Allegations of Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Misappropriation of Resident Property and Other Reportable Incidents with a revision date of 10/04/2018, revealed the following:
IV. Reporting Requirements:
Nursing Facilities must report to the State Agency any incidents and allegations of abuse . immediately, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the event that caused the allegation involves abuse or results in bodily harm or injury.
Reporting is to be made to the Administrator, or designee, of the facility and to other officials in accordance with state law through established procedures.
Review of the facility reported incident filed for Resident #1 revealed the following:
Entered: 02/21/2024 at 3:43 p.m.
Occurred: 02/20/2024 at 9:30 p.m.
Discovered: 02/21/2024 at 1:00 p.m.
Alleged Allegation #2: Verbal Abuse
Incident Investigation: On 02/20/2024, S5CNA was witnessed yelling and cursing profanities at Resident #1. S5CNA was heard by S6CNA and S7CNA telling Resident #1 If you don't stop coming in and out of that room, I am going to bash your mother f****** head, Get up off the f****** floor. Shut the f***up. Get the f*** up. You are gonna get up by yourself. You're gonna lay in that mother f****** s*** and I'm not going to change s***, and I'm gonna punch you in the f****** forehead. Following the incident, Resident #1 approached S6CNA crying and stated I hope that CNA isn't going to be taking care of me anymore. I am scared for my life. She has really shaken me.
On 03/06/2024 at 11:53 a.m., an interview was conducted with S6CNA. She stated on 02/20/2024 she witnessed S5CNA verbally abuse Resident #1. S6CNA stated she not report it immediately to S3ADON. She stated she did not know the floor nurse was her direct supervisor if administration was not in the building. S6CNA confirmed she should have reported the verbal abuse allegation immediately, and she did not.
On 03/07/2024 at 10:42 a.m., a telephone interview was conducted with S7CNA. S7CNA stated on 02/20/2024, she observed S5CNA yell and curse at Resident #1. S7CNA stated she did not report the incident to the nurse on duty, S8LPN. S7CNA stated on 02/21/2024, she called and spoke with S3ADON and told her what she witnessed. S7CNA stated she should have reported the verbal abuse she witnessed immediately, and she did not.
On 03/07/2024 at 12:38 p.m., an interview was conducted with S3ADON. S3ADON stated any allegation of abuse should be reported immediately to the supervisor and/or administration per the facility's policy. S3ADON stated she was not made aware of the allegation of verbal abuse between S5CNA and Resident #1, which took place on 02/20/2024, until 02/21/2024. She confirmed she should have been notified immediately, and was not.
On 03/07/2024 at 1:34 p.m., an interview was conducted with S1ADM. S1ADM stated S6CNA and S7CNA stated they did not inform S8LPN when they witnessed S5CNA verbally abuse Resident #1, and they should have. He confirmed the expectation of all staff was to report any allegation of abuse immediately to the nurse and/or supervisor. He stated the initial investigation of verbal abuse was not submitted to the State Agency within 2 hours of the alleged incident taking place.
Dec 2023
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to initiate and resolve grievances voiced for 2 (#46 and #60) of 19 sampled residents reviewed for grievances.
Findings:
Review of the facili...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to initiate and resolve grievances voiced for 2 (#46 and #60) of 19 sampled residents reviewed for grievances.
Findings:
Review of the facility's policy titled, Grievance Policy, revealed the following, in part:
If you have a complaint raise it with the person you are working with. We ask you to allow us 5 working days.
We will acknowledge complaints 24 hours a day.
We will formally acknowledge your complaint within 5 working days and let you know how it was resolved.
Review of the facility's policy titled, Personal Items, revealed the following in part:
Procedure:
5. Anytime missing items of clothing or other personal property shall be reported immediately to the Social Service Director or nurse in charge.
Resident #46
Review of the Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 09/26/2023 revealed Resident #46 had a BIMS of 15 which indicated intact cognition.
Review of the Grievance Log from 09/01/2023 to 12/11/2023 revealed no grievances were filed for Resident #46.
On 12/11/2023 at 1:16 p.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #46. She stated her navy pull over sweater was lost a few weeks ago. She stated it was sent to laundry and was never returned to her. She stated she told the CNA's, a nurse and laundry aids and had never heard back about her missing sweater.
On 12/13/2023 at 8:47 a.m., an interview was conducted with S6CNA. She stated she sent Resident #46's blue sweater to be laundered. She stated the sweater never returned. She stated S5RN was aware.
On 12/13/2023 at 8:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with S7CNA. She stated Resident #46's blue sweater was sent to be laundered. She stated the sweater never returned. She stated S8ES was aware.
On 12/13/2023 at 12:00 p.m., an interview was conducted with S8ES. She stated she was told yesterday by Resident #46 of a missing a blue sweater for the first time. She stated she did not initiate a grievance.
On 12/13/2023 at 12:15 p.m., an interview was conducted with S5RN. He stated on 12/01/2023 Resident #46 told him she was missing a blue sweater. He stated he did not initiate a grievance and did not know the time frame to report a grievance.
On 12/13/2023 at 11:10 a.m., an interview was conducted with S2ADON. She stated she was responsible for writing grievances. She confirmed she was not informed of Resident 46's missing blue sweater and should have been.
On 12/13/2023 at 12:52 p.m., an interview was conducted with S1NFA. He stated he expected staff to notify the S2ADON, Social Services or himself if a resident's missing item was not found. He confirmed he was never informed of Resident 46's missing blue sweater, a grievance had not been initiated, and should have been.
Resident #60
Review of the Quarterly MDS with ARD of 11/07/2023 revealed Resident #60 had a BIMS of 12 which indicated moderately impaired cognition.
Review of the Grievance Log from 08/01/2023 to 12/11/2023 revealed no grievances were filed for Resident #60.
Review of the Resident Council Meeting Minutes from September 2023 through December 2023 revealed the following, in part:
10/26/2023 -Resident #60 stated he had some missing clothes.
11/30/2023 -Resident #60 had a concern his clothes had not been found. He stated his purple shirt and uniform were still missing.
On 12/12/2023 at 9:20 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #60. He stated he reported his missing clothing in the Residents' Council meeting last month. He stated no one ever talked to him concerning his missing uniform and purple shirt.
On 12/12/2023 at 9:42 a.m., an interview was conducted with S4APAD. She stated she was responsible for typing Resident Council Meeting Minutes. She stated after the Resident Council Meeting, she gave all department heads and the Administrator a copy of the minutes.
On 12/13/2023 at 8:35 a.m., an interview was conducted with S3ADON. She stated she expected staff to report all grievances to herself or Social Services. She stated she typed up any grievances in a memo and gave it to the Administrator. She stated the Administrator was responsible for investigating grievances. She confirmed she was not made aware of Resident #60's missing items and should have been.
On 12/13/2023 at 12:31 p.m., an interview was conducted with S1NFA. He stated the process for a grievance was for a CNA to report concerns to Social Services or S3ADON. He stated if they could not resolve the issue they would report the concerns to him. He stated he read the Residents' Council Meeting Minutes. After reviewing the residents 'council meeting minutes dated 11/30/2023, he stated he was not aware of a missing uniform or purple shirt. He confirmed he did not initiate a grievance and should have.
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Minor procedural issue · 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 a Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment was co...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment was completed within 14 days of a resident admitted to hospice for 1 (#56) of 3 (#52, #56, and #72) sampled residents who received hospice services.
Findings:
Review of Resident #56's Clinical Record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE].
Review of Resident #56's Hospice Face Sheet revealed Resident #56 was admitted to hospice on 07/17/2023.
Review of Resident #56's MDS revealed a Significant Change MDS was submitted on 08/22/2023.
On 12/12/2023 at 10:00 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #56's hospice nurse. She said Resident #56 was admitted to hospice on 07/17/2023.
On 12/12/2023 at 9:20 a.m., an interview was conducted with S2DON. She confirmed the facility had 14 days to complete a Significant Change MDS. She confirmed a Significant Change MDS for Resident #56 was not submitted within the 14 day timeframe, and should have.
Nov 2022
2 deficiencies
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 observation and Interview, the facility failed to accurately conduct a comprehensive assessment for one resident (#236)...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and Interview, the facility failed to accurately conduct a comprehensive assessment for one resident (#236) as it relates to diagnosis of neurogenic bladder and catheter care on the MDS. This affected one resident (#236) in a total sample of 23 residents reviewed for MDS documentation.
Findings include:
Resident #236 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of Malignant Neoplasm of Prostate, Neurogenic Bladder, and BPH.
Observation with Resident # 236 on 11/14/2022 at 10:41 a.m. revealed the resident had an indwelling supra pubic catheter.
Review of the quarterly MDS with an ARD of 10/20/2022 revealed on Section I Active Diagnoses, I1550 Neurogenic bladder was not assessed under active diagnosis. Further review of Section H Bladder and Bowel, H0100 Appliances- Z was marked None of the above which indicated Resident #236 was not assessed for a catheter.
Review of Physician's Orders for November 2022 revealed an order dated 11/24/2021 that reads: Change supra pubic catheter every month on the 28th and catheter care every day.
An interview was conducted with S2DON on 11/15/2022 at 12:37 p.m. She confirmed there was no documentation of an assessment for diagnosis of neurogenic bladder on Section I of the MDS and there was no assessment in Section H for supra pubic catheter on the MDS Assessment.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident was treated with respect ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident was treated with respect and dignity in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 4 (#20, #25, #43 and #56) of 84 residents residing in the facility. The facility failed to ensure:
1. S9HK, S5CNA, and S6CNA knocked and requested permission to enter Residents #20 and #25's room;
2. S10CNA knocked and requested permission to enter Resident #43's room; and
3. S5CNA knocked and requested permission to enter Resident #56's room.
Findings:
Resident #20
A review of Resident #20's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE].
A review of Resident #20's quarterly MDS with an ARD of 09/01/2022 revealed Resident #20 had a BIMS of 9, which indicated she was moderately cognitively impaired.
On 11/15/2022 at 1:59 p.m., an observation was made of S9HK entering Resident #20's room without knocking or asking for permission to enter.
On 11/16/2022 at 9:15 a.m., an observation was made of S5CNA and S6CNA entering Resident #20's room without knocking or asking for permission to enter.
On 11/16/2022 at 9:39 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #20. She stated it bothered her when the staff entered her room without knocking because she liked her privacy.
Resident #25
On 11/15/2022 at 1:57 p.m., an observation was made of S9HK entering Resident #25's room without knocking or asking for permission to enter.
On 11/16/2022 at 9:06 a.m., an observation was made of S5CNA and S6CNA entering Resident #25's room without knocking or asking for permission to enter.
Resident #43
On 11/14/2022 at 9:35 a.m., an observation was made of S10CNA walking into Resident #43's room without knocking or asking permission to enter.
Resident #56
A review of Resident #56's Clinical Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE].
A review of Resident #56's quarterly MDS with an ARD of 08/15/2022 revealed Resident #56 had a BIMS of 15, which indicated she was cognitively intact.
On 11/14/2022 at 9:24 a.m., while conducting an interview with Resident #56, S5CNA entered Resident #56's room without knocking on the door or asking for permission to enter. Resident #56 stated the staff frequently came into the room without knocking. Resident #56 stated it really bothered her because she enjoyed her privacy.
On 11/16/2022 at 2:11 p.m., an interview was conducted with S3ADON. S3ADON stated she expected staff to knock and request permission before entering a resident's room. S3ADON confirmed staff should not have walked into a resident's room without knocking or asking for permission to enter.
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
- • 32% turnover. Below Louisiana's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
- • 11 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 73/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.
✓ Report will be sent to your email
About This Facility
What is Hammond's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns HAMMOND NURSING HOME an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Hammond Staffed?
CMS rates HAMMOND NURSING HOME's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 32%, compared to the Louisiana average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Hammond?
State health inspectors documented 11 deficiencies at HAMMOND NURSING HOME during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 9 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Hammond?
HAMMOND NURSING HOME 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 120 certified beds and approximately 84 residents (about 70% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in HAMMOND, Louisiana.
How Does Hammond Compare to Other Louisiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Louisiana, HAMMOND NURSING HOME's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.4, staff turnover (32%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Hammond?
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 Hammond Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, HAMMOND NURSING HOME 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 4-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 Hammond Stick Around?
HAMMOND NURSING HOME has a staff turnover rate of 32%, 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 Hammond Ever Fined?
HAMMOND NURSING HOME has been fined $8,018 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Louisiana average of $33,159. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Hammond on Any Federal Watch List?
HAMMOND NURSING HOME 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.