CHATEAU TERREBONNE HEALTH CARE CENTER

1386 WEST TUNNEL BLVD., HOUMA, LA 70360 (985) 872-4553
For profit - Corporation 197 Beds PRIORITY MANAGEMENT Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
41/100
#67 of 264 in LA
Last Inspection: May 2025

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

Overview

Chateau Terrebonne Health Care Center has a Trust Grade of D, which indicates below-average care and raises some concerns for potential residents and their families. It ranks #67 out of 264 facilities in Louisiana, placing it in the top half of the state, and #2 out of 4 in Terrebonne County, meaning only one local facility has a better ranking. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 5 in 2025. Staffing is a weakness here, rated at 2 out of 5 stars with a turnover rate of 33%, which is better than the state average but still below average overall. There were serious concerns noted in inspections, including a critical incident where a resident with severe cognitive impairment was able to elope from the facility, which could have led to dangerous situations. Additionally, the facility failed to hold a necessary care planning conference for another resident, indicating lapses in care coordination. While the health inspection score is relatively good at 4 out of 5 stars, the overall quality measures are poor, highlighting both strengths and significant weaknesses in care.

Trust Score
D
41/100
In Louisiana
#67/264
Top 25%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
33% turnover. Near Louisiana's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$28,805 in fines. Higher than 88% of Louisiana facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 15 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Louisiana. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
12 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 5 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (33%)

    15 points below Louisiana average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Above Louisiana average (2.4)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 33%

13pts below Louisiana avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $28,805

Below median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: PRIORITY MANAGEMENT

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 12 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
May 2025 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to assess a resident for self-administration of medica...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to assess a resident for self-administration of medications for 1 (Resident #143) of 1 (Resident #143) sampled residents reviewed for accident hazards. Findings: Review of the facility's Self-Administration of Medications policy and procedure revised on 12/2016 revealed, in part, the interdisciplinary team would assess each resident's cognitive and physical abilities to determine whether self-administration of medications was safe and clinically appropriate for the resident. Further review revealed any medications found at the bedside that were not authorized for self-administration were turned over to the nurse in charge for return to the family or responsible party. Review of Resident #143's clinical record revealed Resident #143 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #143's Quarterly Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date of 03/18/2025 revealed, in part, Resident #143 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 6, which indicated Resident #143 had severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #143's May 2025 Physician's Orders revealed, in part, no documented evidence of an order for Resident #143 to self-administer medications. Observation on 05/18/2025 at 10:25AM revealed a bottle of Polyvinyl Alcohol 1.4% Lubricating Eye Drops and Systane Lubricant Eye Drops (medicated eye drops used to relieve dry eyes) were on Resident #143's bedside table. Further observation revealed the bottle of Polyvinyl Alcohol 1.4% Lubricating Eye Drops had an expiration date of 07/2024. In an interview on 05/18/2025 at 10:25AM, Resident #143 indicated she self-administered the above mentioned eye drops once or twice a day. Review of Resident #143's clinical record revealed no documented evidence, and the facility did not present any documented evidence Resident #143 was assessed and/or authorized to self-administer medications. In an interview on 05/19/2025 at 10:12AM, S6Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) indicated the above mentioned medications should not have been at Resident #143's bedside and available for self-administration. In a telephone interview on 05/19/2025 at 10:42AM, Resident #143's son indicated his mother had eye drops at her bedside since she was admitted to the facility. In an interview 05/20/2025 at 2:10PM, S1Assistant Administrator indicated Resident #143 should not have had the above mentioned medications at her bedsides and available for self-administration.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0628 (Tag F0628)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide the resident or responsible party (RP) with written notic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide the resident or responsible party (RP) with written notice which specified the duration of the bed-hold policy at the time of transfer to the hospital for 2 (Resident #16, Resident #86) of 2 (Resident #16, Resident #86) sampled residents investigated for hospitalizations. Findings: Review of the facility's Bed Hold and Returns policy, revised on 04/16/2024, revealed, in part, when a resident was transferred to the hospital, or goes out on therapeutic leave, a copy of this form (Notice of Hospital Transfer/Therapeutic Leave) was sent with the resident, and the resident representative will be notified specifying the duration of the bed-hold according to state plan, and the facilities policy regarding bed-hold periods. In cases of emergency transfer, notice at the time of transfer means that the family or resident representative are provided with written notification within 24 hours of the transfer. Resident #16 Review of Resident #16's record revealed no documented evidence, and the facility was unable to present any documentation showing that Resident #16 and Resident #16's responsible party had received written notification of the bed hold policy when admitted to the hospital on [DATE]. In an interview on 05/20/2025 at 9:45AM, S1Assistant Administrator indicated the facility did not provide residents with the Notice of Hospital Transfer/Therapeutic Leave policy upon hospital admissions. S1Assistant Administrator confirmed Resident #16 was not provided a copy of the Notice of Hospital Transfer/Therapeutic Leave when Resident #16 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE]. Resident #86 Review of Resident #86's record revealed no documented evidence, and the facility was unable to present any documentation showing that Resident #86 and Resident #86's responsible party had received written notification of the bed hold policy when admitted to the hospital on [DATE]. In an interview on 05/20/2025 at 2:05PM, S1Assistant Administrator indicated Resident #86 was not provided a copy of the Notice of Hospital Transfer/Therapeutic Leave when Resident #86 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE].
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to complete quarterly safe smoking assessments for 1 (Resident #11) of 1 (Resident #11) sampled residents investigated for smoking. Finding...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to complete quarterly safe smoking assessments for 1 (Resident #11) of 1 (Resident #11) sampled residents investigated for smoking. Findings: Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Smoking Policy-Resident, dated 2001 and revised on 03/08/2023, revealed once the resident was determined to be a smoker, his/her ability to smoke safely would be evaluated upon admission, with subsequent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment and as needed. Review of Resident #11's annual MDS with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 09/16/2024 revealed Resident #11 used tobacco. Review of the facility's list of smoker's documentation revealed, in part, Resident #11 was determined to be a smoker. Review of Resident #11's medical record revealed the last Safe Smoking Assessment document was completed on 09/16/2024 with Resident #11's Annual MDS. Further review revealed a Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 12/15/2024 and a Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 03/13/2025 was completed. In an interview on 05/19/2025 at 10:36AM, S7 MDS Coordinator indicated the Safe Smoking Assessment document was completed on admit, quarterly with MDS assessment, and as needed. S7MDS Coordinator confirmed the last Safe Smoking Assessment completed in Resident #11's medical record was on 09/16/2024, and Resident #11 should have had a Safe Smoking Assessment completed with the 12/15/2024 MDS and the 03/13/2025 MDS. In an interview on 05/19/2025 at 11:05AM, S3Director of Nursing (DON) indicated Safe Smoking Assessments were completed quarterly with MDS assessments. S3DON further indicated Resident #11 should have had quarterly Safe Smoking Assessments completed since 09/16/2025. There was no documented evidence and the facility failed to present documented evidence a Safe Smoking Assessment document was completed for Resident #11 for December 2024 and March 2025.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to complete a care plan conference for 1 (Resident #119) of 1 (Resident #119) sampled residents investigated for care planning. Findings: R...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to complete a care plan conference for 1 (Resident #119) of 1 (Resident #119) sampled residents investigated for care planning. Findings: Review of the facility's Resident Participation in Assessment and Care Plan policy, revised December 2016, revealed, in part, a comprehensive care plan was developed within 7 days of completion of the resident assessment and a 7 day advance notice of the care planning conference was provided to the resident and his or her representative. Review of Resident #119's record revealed no documented evidence, and the facility did not present any documented evidence, evidence a care plan conference had been completed after the completion of the MDS on 04/04/2025. In an interview on 05/18/2025 at 11:59AM, Resident #119 indicated he had not participated in a care plan conference. In an interview on 05/19/2025 at 11:29AM, S8Minimum Data Set Nurse (MDS Nurse) indicated Resident #119 had a MDS assessment completed on 04/04/2025 and should have had a care plan conference. S8MDS nurse indicated Resident #119's last scheduled care plan conference was on 10/03/2025. In an interview on 05/20/2025 at 12:19AM, S2Quality Improvement (QI) Nurse indicated Resident #119 should have had a care plan conference after the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment on 04/04/2025. S2QI Nurse confirmed Resident #119 did not have a scheduled care plan conference in April 2025
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
May 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record reviews, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's tracheostomy care was completed in a sanitary manner for 1 (Resident #90) of 1 (Resident #90) sampled r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's tracheostomy care was completed in a sanitary manner for 1 (Resident #90) of 1 (Resident #90) sampled residents investigated for mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy care. Findings: Review of Resident #90's Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date of 04/21/2024 revealed, in part, Resident #90 had diagnoses of cardiorespiratory conditions and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia. Further review revealed Resident #90 received tracheostomy care and invasive mechanical ventilation. Review of Resident #90's May 2024 physician's orders revealed, in part, an order for Resident #90 to receive tracheostomy care twice per day. Further review revealed an order to change Resident #90's disposable inner cannula once per day. Review of Resident #90's care plan for ventilator dependence revealed, in part, interventions for Resident #90 to receive tracheostomy care twice in a 24-hour period and Resident #90's inner cannula to be changed once in a 24-hour period or more as necessary. Observation of Resident #90's tracheostomy care on 05/08/2024 at 9:04 a.m. revealed S3RespiratoryTherapist (RT) opened the inner cannula package, and the inner cannula fell out of the package onto Resident #90's bed linen. S3RT then removed Resident #90's existing disposable inner cannula. Further observation revealed S3RT picked up the new inner cannula off Resident #90's bed linen and inserted the inner cannula into Resident #90's tracheostomy stoma. In an interview on 05/08/2024 at 9:51 a.m., S3RT confirmed Resident #90's inner cannula had fallen out of the package prior to the insertion of the inner cannula into Resident #90's tracheostomy stoma. S3RT confirmed she should have obtained a new inner cannula to insert into Resident #90's tracheostomy stoma. In an interview on 05/08/2024 at 9:53 a.m., S4RespiratoryDirector confirmed S3RT should not have placed Resident #90's inner cannula into her tracheostomy stoma after it had fallen on Resident #90's bed. S4Respiratory Director confirmed S3RT should have obtained a new inner cannula.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to assess residents for self-administration of drugs ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to assess residents for self-administration of drugs for 2 (Resident #9 and Resident #61) of 29 (Resident #2, Resident #9, Resident #22, Resident #25, Resident #26, Resident #29, Resident #30, Resident #36, Resident #43, Resident #54, Resident #55, Resident #61, Resident #73, Resident #77, Resident #84, Resident #90, Resident #96, Resident #109, Resident #113, Resident #121, Resident #122, Resident #127, Resident #135, Resident #138, Resident #139, Resident #140, Resident #197, Resident #297, and Resident #397) sampled residents. Findings: Review of the facility's Self-Administration of Medications policy, revised December 2016, revealed, in part, residents had the right to self-administer medications if the interdisciplinary team had determined that it was clinically appropriate and safe for the resident to do so. Resident #9 Review of Resident #9's record revealed Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of, in part, Osteoarthritis, Dysphagia and Hypertension. Review of Resident #9's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/01/2024 revealed, in part, a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9, which indicated Resident #9 had moderately impaired cognition. Observation on 05/06/2024 at 10:55 a.m. revealed a disposable medicine cup which contained 7 pills was on Resident #9's overbed table. In an interview on 05/06/2024 at 10:55 a.m., Resident #9's family member stated Resident #9's medications are often left at the bedside. Observation on 05/07/2024 at 9:56 a.m. revealed a disposable medicine cup which contained 8 pills was on Resident #9's overbed table. Observation on 05/07/2024 at 12:02 p.m. revealed a disposable medicine cup which contained 8 pills was on Resident #9's overbed table. Observation on 05/07/2024 at 12:21 p.m. revealed Resident #9 self-administered 6 of the 8 medicines in the disposable medicine cup. In an interview on 05/07/2024 at 12:21 p.m., Resident #9 stated she did not take 2 of the medicines because they give her heartache. In an interview on 05/07/2024 at 12:29 p.m., S5Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) stated he had observed medications in Resident #9's room, and Resident #9 chose the medications she wanted to take. In an interview on 05/07/2024 at 12:51 p.m., S6Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) confirmed there were 2 pills in Resident #9's room in a disposable medicine cup. S6LPN identified the pills as a garlic pill and Zoloft 25milligram (a medication used for depression). S6LPN stated Resident #9's medications should not be left at the bedside. In an interview on 05/08/2024 at 12:01 p.m., S1Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident #9's medications should not have been left at the bedside. Resident #61 Resident #61 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of, in part, Diabetes, End Stage Renal Disease, Chronic Kidney Disease, and Hypertension. Review of Resident #61's May 2024 electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) revealed an order for 4 Sevelamer (a phosphate binder) 800mg tablet to be administered at 5:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., and 5:00 p.m. Review of Resident #61's MDS with an ARD of 04/13/2023 revealed, in part, a BIMS score of 15, which indicated Resident #61 had intact cognition. Observation on 05/07/2024 at 12:06 p.m. revealed a disposable medicine cup which contained 2 pills was on Resident #61's overbed table. In an interview on 05/07/2024 at 12:06 p.m., Resident #61 stated the pills in the disposable medicine cup were phosphate binders (a medicine used to lower high blood phosphorus levels in patients who are on dialysis due to severe kidney disease). Resident #61 stated the nurse left the phosphate binders at his bedside for Resident #61 to self-administer the medications with his lunch. In an interview on 05/07/2024 at 1:06 p.m., S6LPN stated Resident #61 had a physician's order for 4 tablets of Sevelamer 800mg. S6LPN indicated she had administered 2 of the 4 tablets to Resident #61 and left the remaining 2 tablets with Resident #61 to self-administer with his lunch. In an interview on 05/08/2024 at 12:01 p.m., S1DON indicated medications should not be left at the bedside for Resident #61. In an interview on 05/08/2024 at 12:47 p.m., S2Quality Improvement Nurse indicated Resident #9 and Resident #61 were not assessed for self-administration of medications.
Jul 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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure the menu prescribed by the registered dietician was followed for 1 (Resident #2) of 5 (Resident #1, Resident #2, Reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure the menu prescribed by the registered dietician was followed for 1 (Resident #2) of 5 (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, and Resident #5) sampled residents reviewed for dietary services. Findings: Review of the facility's Menu revealed, in part, Monday's supper was to consist of tomato soup, hot ham and cheese sandwich; cucumber/onion salad; melon cubes, beverage, and grapes and orange slices. In an interview on 07/25/2023 at 4:40 p.m., Resident #2 stated the CNA last night told him the kitchen had ran out of the sandwiches so he would not be receiving one. Resident #2 further stated S4Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) asked what was wrong when she came to check on me and she was able to get me a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Resident #2 stated they post our menus every day and quite often what is on the menu the facility runs out of. Review of the facility's Menu revealed, in part, Tuesday's supper was to consist of shrimp etouffee, fluffy rice; breaded zucchini sticks; tossed salad, dressing of choice; dulce de leche brownie; and assorted beverage. Observation on 07/25/2023 at 5:27 p.m. revealed Resident #2's meal tray had shrimp stew, salad, dulce de leche brownie, and beverages. Further observation revealed no zucchini was present on Resident #2's meal tray. In an interview on 07/25/2023 at 5:27 p.m., Resident #2 stated he was not brought or offered zucchini. Resident #2 stated he would like zucchini. Review of Resident #2's Meal Ticket dated 07/25/2023 revealed no documented evidence for the reason as to why Resident #2 did not receive zucchini with his supper meal tray. In an interview on 07/25/2023 at 5:30 p.m., S5Certified Nursing Assistant stated the facility does not run out of food too often. S5CNA stated the kitchen they did run out of zucchini tonight and the alternate was mashed potatoes which did not go with the shrimp stew, therefore the zucchini did not have an alternative on Resident #2's plate. S5CNA stated when the facility runs out of something we were to offer the alternative, and she did not offer Resident #2 the alternative and should have. In an interview on 07/25/2023 at 5:49 p.m., S3Dietary Manager stated the kitchen should not be running out of things at all because we order so much. S3Dietary Manager stated the dietary workers did not let me know they ran out of zucchini tonight. S3Dietary Manager further stated the dietary workers should have called the main kitchen to have more of the zucchini sent over. In an interview on 07/25/2023 at 6:12 p.m., S6Dietary Worker stated the facility rarely run out of a food while serving, and when the facility does it was usually only a part of the meal and the facility staff will offer the alternative. S6Dietary Worker stated the facility ran out of ham and turkey last night and residents were offered the grilled cheese sandwich or peanut butter and jelly. S6Dietary Worker stated tonight the facility had the zucchini as a side, but the zucchini was a bit watery, so we gave salads instead. In an interview on 07/26/2023 at 9:18 a.m., Resident #R2 stated about once to twice a month a side item or something will run out and they will give us an alternative item. In an interview on 07/26/2023 at 2:26 p.m., Resident #2 stated he never received the zucchini on 07/25/2023 for supper, was brought cooked greens last night instead.
Jun 2023 4 deficiencies 2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · 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 provide supervision to keep a resident free from e...

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 provide supervision to keep a resident free from elopement for 1 (Resident #96) of 10 residents (Resident #29, Resident #49, Resident #71, Resident #75, Resident #96, Resident #98 Resident #133, Resident #147, Resident #158, and Resident #159) identified at risk for elopement in the facility. This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation for Resident #96 with a BIMS (Brief Interview Mental Status) score of 3, which indicated Resident #96 had severely impaired cognition on 02/09/2023 when Resident #96 eloped from the facility at approximately 5:00 p.m. Staff were notified by phone at approximately 5:00 p.m. by S18Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), that Resident #96 was in the front parking lot of the facility approximately 25 feet from the main highway. Resident #96 was assisted back into the facility immediately after receiving the phone call and no injuries identified upon assessment. S1Administrator was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 06/13/2023 at 12:27 p.m. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 06/13/2023 at 6:22 p.m., after it was determined through observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility implemented an acceptable Plan of Removal, prior to the survey exit, which included: 1. Resident #96 was assessed on 02/09/2023 at 5:00 p.m. with no injuries noted from wandering. No additional wandering behaviors were noted at that time. Resident #96 was reassessed on 06/13/2023 at 4:44 p.m., with no additional existing behaviors noted. Resident has had a room assignment change, to be located in a high traffic area directly across from the nurse's station, for increased direct supervision from staff. Staff were in-serviced to redirect Resident #96 to an area of high traffic to be monitored by direct supervision from staff when he exhibited wandering behaviors. 2. Safe Survey Elopement Checks were conducted and completed on 06/13/2023 approximately between 9:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. on residents identified at risk for elopement. There were 10 total residents presently at risk for elopement that were all present and accounted for by 10:00 a.m. on 06/13/2023. 3. Staff were in-service, including contracted staff, on identifying residents at risk for elopement, the elopement prevention protocol, the elopement reporting policy and procedures, and on the wanderguard system, this was initiated on 06/13/2023 at 11:30 a.m., and would be completed by 06/16/2023 by 6:00 p.m. Staff that were not in-serviced would not be permitted to work until in-serviced. On 06/13/2023, the social worker composed a letter to residents and their responsible parties regarding the use of facility doors that required codes as of 06/14/2023. It addressed not letting other residents exit with them and to notify staff of any incidents of the alarm sounding or other residents trying to exit with them. On 06/13/2023 as of 5:30 p.m., facility door codes were changed and only designated staff would have access to facility door codes. The facility's main entrance would be designated as an entrance/exit for residents and family member. As of 06/13/2023, a staff member would be designated to supervise this entrance with shifts of 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. In-serviced staff were not to share code. Designated staff would allow entrance and exit to the facility. Monitored use of code by observation 15 minutes a day, 3 days a week for 4 weeks ending on 07/11/2023. Every two hours monitoring of resident's that were at risk for elopement. Assessed residents at risk for elopement would determine if increased supervision was needed, on a resident by resident basis, completed on 06/13/2023 by 5:00 p.m. After assessments completed, if determined the need of increased supervision for resident, it would be initiated on the residents that demonstrated increased wandering behaviors at the time. At the time the resident displayed the behaviors, the resident would be moved to an area of high traffic for monitoring by direct supervision from staff. When residents started to wander, education would be initiated on redirecting resident and would provide direct supervision of resident. High Risk residents would be reassessed weekly for 4 weeks. 4. NFA or designee would perform safe survey elopement checks of residents identified at risk for elopement three times a week times for four weeks, and then weekly thereafter indefinitely. 5. The Facility Administrator would put in place an Elopement Prevention Program initiated by Administration. The Administrator would provide opportunities for staff to express concerns related to elopement risk by open door practice starting on 06/13/2023. a. The S2Director of Nursing and Administrator in-serviced all scheduled staff starting on 06/13/2023 on elopement prevention program, including contracted staff. b. All remaining employees would be in-serviced on elopement prevention program prior to the shift start, by Administrator or designee by 06/13/2023. c. Elopement Prevention Program open door practice included in orientation process for new hire and contract staff. d. Regional [NAME] President or Quality Assurance Nurse would ensure the Administrator/Designee was conducting random observation of elopement risk assessment and monitoring tool completion weekly times 30 days. e. Any negative findings from the Safe Survey Checks would be acted on by the Administrator and immediately report findings to the Q.A.P.I. weekly for 30 days, then monthly thereafter. This deficient practice had the likelihood to cause serious harm to the remaining 9 residents identified as elopement risks by the facility. Findings: Review of the facility's Wandering and Elopement Policy revealed, in part, the elopement risk tool will determine if the resident is at risk for wandering/elopement and will be completed on admission/readmission, quarterly during observation period of MDS, annual, significant changes and as needed. Review revealed, staff shall promptly report any resident who tries to leave the premises or is suspected of being missing to the Charge Nurse or Director of Nursing. Review revealed, if an employee observes a resident leaving the premises he/she should: attempt to prevent the departure, get help from other staff members, instruct a staff member to inform the charge nurse or Director of Nursing that a resident has left the premises. When the resident returns to the facility, the director of nursing or charge nurse shall: notify regulatory agencies per state guidelines as indicated. Review of Resident #96's medical record revealed, in part, Resident #96 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia with behavioral disturbances and major depressive disorder. Review of Resident #96's MDS (Minimum Data Sheet) with an ARD(Assessment Reference Date) of 05/17/2023 revealed, in part, Resident #96 had a BIMS (Brief Interview Mental Status) score of 3, which indicated Resident #96 had severely impaired cognition. Further review revealed, Resident #96 used a wander/elopement alarm daily. Review of Resident #96's Comprehensive Care Plan revealed, in part, Resident #96 was at risk for elopement. Further review revealed Resident #96's interventions included: should have a wanderguard applied as ordered. Resident #96's wanderguard should be monitored for proper functioning, staff should be aware of their surroundings daily, staff should redirect Resident #96 as needed, and Resident #96 should be on the wander list located at the nurse's station. Further review of Resident #96's care plan revealed no additional interventions implemented after elopement on 02/09/2023. Review of Resident #96's nurses' notes revealed, in part, a nurse's note with a date of 02/09/2023 written by S5LPN which stated Resident #96 was found outside by staff. Further review revealed, in part, Resident #96 left out of the door behind a resident who goes outside regularly and alarm was not censored at the time. Review of Resident #96's medical record revealed, in part, Resident #96 did not have an elopement risk assessment completed prior to the incident of elopement on 02/09/2023. Review of Resident #96's elopement risk assessment dated [DATE] revealed, in part, Resident #96 had a history of leaving the facility without needed supervision. Further review revealed, Resident #96 is at risk for elopement. Review of the facility's Incident Report for Resident #96 dated 02/09/2023 revealed, in part, Resident #96 was found outside of the facility by staff. Observation on 06/11/2023 at 10:00 a.m., revealed Resident #96 in his wheelchair rolling near Door A with no direct staff supervision. Observation on 06/11/2023 at 11:28 a.m., revealed Resident #96 in his wheelchair rolling on Hall 3 asking a staff member about getting out of the facility to go home. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 9:06 a.m., S8CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) stated Resident #96 wanders frequently. S8CNA further stated Resident #96 frequently tries to get out of the facility so he can go home to his mother. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 9:10 a.m., S9MDS LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) stated Resident #96 was found in the parking lot a few months ago while wearing a wanderguard. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 10:25 a.m., S9MDS LPN stated elopement risk assessments are completed quarterly. S9MDS LPN confirmed Resident #96's elopement risk assessment was not completed quarterly and should have been completed quarterly. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 10:34 a.m., S11Maintenance Supervisor stated wander guards were checked weekly. Observation on 06/12/2023 at 10:27 a.m., revealed Resident #96 sitting in wheelchair in dining area with staff present at the nurses station. Resident #96 talking with administrator stating, I am hoping to get out of here. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 11:00 a.m., S10MDS RN (Registered Nurse) stated Resident #96 did not have any elopement risk assessments completed in 2021 or 2022. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 12:15 p.m., S5LPN stated she was alerted by another staff member that Resident #96 was found outside of the facility. S5LPN further stated she was not aware Resident #96 had exited the facility and would not have known if she had not been notified by another staff member. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 12:25 p.m., S12TreatmentNurse (TN) stated she answered the phone when someone called to report Resident #96 was outside in the grass area near the road. S12TN stated she and other staff assisted Resident #96 back inside and notified the nurse. S12TN stated she was not aware Resident #96 had exited the building and does not recall whether the alarm sounded when Resident #96 exited the building. In an interview on 06/12/12023 at 12:35 p.m., S5LPN stated she was on the hall and did not recall hearing the alarm on 02/09/2023 when she was notified Resident #96 was found outside of the building. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 12:53 p.m., S14CNA stated she is only aware of residents who wander by their wanderguard. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 2:36 p.m., S16CNA stated Resident #96 wanders around the building and thinks Resident #96 has a wanderguard on. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 3:15 p.m., S2DON stated elopement risk assessments are completed on admission, readmission, status changes, and quarterly. S2DON stated she was told Resident #96 was found outside. S2DON further stated Resident #96 got outside when another resident had the door open, and unsure how long Resident #96 was outside. S2DON stated when Resident #96 was assisted back inside the facility, the nurse ensured Resident #96's wanderguard was on. S2DON stated some cognitive residents have the door code. S2DON stated all staff are expected to provide increased supervision and be aware of residents who are identified as an elopement risk, location in the facility at all times. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 3:25 p.m., S1Administrator stated he was present in the facility when Resident #96 went out of Door A when the door was propped open by Resident #13 who was smoking in the front of the building. S1Administrator stated he did not complete a SIMS (Statewide Incident Management System) report since he did not consider Resident #96 exiting the facility a reportable event because Resident #96 was still on facility grounds. S1Administrator stated cognitive residents who are capable of going in and out of the facility are allowed to have the door code to access any of the entrances in the facility. S1Administrator stated he does not have a documented investigation related to the incident. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 4:25 p.m., S26Administrator stated Hall 4 does not have an elopement risk binder because that is the vent unit and the majority of those residents are bedbound. S26Administrator stated all of the facility doors lock at 7:00 p.m., and an alarm will go off if the door is held open. S26Administrator further stated the box located at Station 1 and Station 2 will indicate which door is alarming. At this time, S26Administrator held the door open and it took approximately 1 minute for the alarm to sound. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 5:55 p.m., S17Assistant Administrator stated S18LPN witnessed Resident #96 going out of Door A down the driveway near the ambulance entrance when she was getting in her car after her shift. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 6:18 p.m., S18LPN stated on 02/09/2023 she left the facility when her shift ended at 3:00 p.m., to run an errand and did not see Resident #96 in the parking lot when she left the facility. S18LPN further stated when she passed back in front of the facility after her errand she noticed Resident #96 outside in the front parking lot heading toward the ambulance entrance. S18LPN stated she called the facility to let staff know Resident #96 was outside because she knew Resident #96 was confused. S18LPN stated she turned into the parking lot and prior to exiting her car the other staff were coming out the door to assist Resident #96 back in the facility. In an interview on 06/13/2023 at 8:45 a.m., S17Assistant Administrator stated the facility did not have any documented evidence that the incident on 02/09/2023 for Resident #96 was reviewed in the Quarterly Quality Assurance (QA) meeting held on 04/25/2023. Observation on 06/13/2023 at 9:40 a.m. S18LPN escorted surveyor from Resident #96's previous room, which was located across the building, to the front of the facility and displayed the area where Resident #96 was found on 02/09/2023. Observation further revealed the area Resident #96 was found in was the front parking lot of the facility approximately 25 feet from the main highway, which was unable to be supervised by staff assigned to Resident #96. In an interview on 06/13/2023 at 9:40 a.m., S24CNA stated she had been working at the facility for approximately 4 months. S24CNA further stated residents who wander are identified by their wander guard bracelets. In an interview on 06/13/2023 at 9:46 a.m., S25CNA stated she has been working at the facility for approximately 1 year. S25CNA further stated residents who wander are identified by their wander guard bracelets. S25CNA stated if the alarm goes off the staff know a wander resident is at the door. S25CNA further stated without a wander guard in place, the staff do not have any way of knowing if a resident is an elopement risk. In an interview on 06/13/2023 at 11:35 a.m., S20CNA stated Resident #96 is allowed to move throughout the facility in his wheelchair without direct staff supervision. In an interview on 06/13/2023 at 11:36 a.m., S21CNA stated monitoring a resident that is at risk for wandering, every 2 hours is not sufficient. In an interview on 06/13/2023 at 11:37 a.m., S22CNA stated monitoring a resident that is at risk for wandering, every 2 hours is not sufficient. S22CNA further stated Resident #96 moves around freely in the wheelchair and likes to sit by the door. In an interview on 06/13/2023 at 11:39 a.m., S23CNA stated monitoring a resident that is at risk for wandering, every 2 hours is not sufficient. In an interview on 06/13/2023 at 4:40 p.m., S13QI Nurse stated if Resident #96 did not have direct supervision while in the parking lot then the facility should have notified herself or the regional vice president to review the situation and determine whether a SIMS (state incident reporting system) report should have been completed. S13QINurse also stated she was not notified by the facility of the elopement incident on 02/09/2023. S13QI Nurse stated residents who are elopement risk should have increased supervision. S13QI Nurse stated the regional vice president or herself will oversee the administrator with weekly site visits for 4 weeks, at the end of the 4 weeks they will evaluate whether weekly site visits should be extended. In an interview on 06/13/2023 at 5:30 p.m., S13QI Nurse stated an investigation should be completed when residents are outside of the facility unsupervised. In an interview on 06/13/2023 at 5:35 p.m., S1Administrator stated the family members are allowed to have the code to enter the facility at any of the entrances because his facility is too big for him to control who comes in and out of it through one entrance. S1Adminstrator stated any resident in the facility who is cognitive or a safe smoker can have the code to the facility doors. S1Adminstrator stated his facility was not a 1 on 1 facility and they could not provide 24 hour continuous supervision for Resident #96. S1Administrator stated an incident of an elopement could occur at any point in his facility and there would be nothing he could do about it.
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Administration (Tag F0835)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

The facility failed to be administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources effectively and efficiently by failing to provide supervision to keep a resident free from elopement for 1 (Resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
The facility failed to be administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources effectively and efficiently by failing to provide supervision to keep a resident free from elopement for 1 (Resident #96) of 10 residents (Resident #29, Resident #49, Resident #71, Resident #75, Resident #96, Resident #98 Resident #133, Resident #147, Resident #158, and Resident #159) identified at risk for elopement in the facility. This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation for Resident #96 with a BIMS (Brief Interview Mental Status) score of 3, which indicated Resident #96 had severely impaired cognition on 02/09/2023 when Resident #96 eloped from the facility at approximately 5:00 p.m. Staff were notified by phone at approximately 5:00 p.m. by S18Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), that Resident #96 was in the front parking lot of the facility approximately 25 feet from the main highway. Resident #96 was assisted back into the facility immediately after receiving the phone call and no injuries identified upon assessment. S1Administrator was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 06/13/2023 at 12:27 p.m. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 06/13/2023 at 6:22 p.m., after it was determined through observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility implemented an acceptable Plan of Removal, prior to the survey exit, which included: 1. Administrator was in-serviced by S13QI Nurse on Elopement on 06/13/2023 at 12:00 p.m. Resident #96 was assessed on 02/09/23 at 5:00 p.m. with no injuries noted from wandering. No additional wandering behaviors were noted at that time. Resident #96 was reassessed on 06/13/2023 at 4:44 p.m., with no additional existing behaviors noted. Resident has had a room assignment change, to be located in a high traffic area directly across from the nurse's station, for increased direct supervision from staff. Staff were in-serviced to redirect Resident #96 to an area of high traffic to be monitored by direct supervision from staff when he exhibited wandering behaviors. 2. Administrator was in-serviced by S13QI Nurse on reporting of elopement on 06/13/2023. a. Regional [NAME] President or Quality Assurance Nurse would ensure Administrator/Designee is conducting random observation of elopement audit with residents' weekly times 30 days with completion date of 07/11/2023. 3. The S11Maintenance Supervisor conducted and completed a safe survey elopement checks on 06/13/2023 to ensure that any further potential elopement was prevented. Safe Survey Elopement Checks would be conducted by Administrative designees on random residents weekly for 30 days, then monthly thereafter indefinitely. Any negative finding will be reported to the Administrator and acted on immediately. Staff in-serviced, including contracted staff, on identifying residents at risk for elopement, the elopement prevention protocol, the elopement reporting policy and procedures, and on the wanderguard system was initiated on 06/13/2023 at 11:30 a.m. and to be completed by 06/16/2023 by 6:00 p.m. Staff not in-serviced would not be permitted to work until in-serviced. On 06/13/2023 Social Worker, composed a letter to residents and their responsible parties regarding the use of facility doors that required codes as of 06/14/2023. It would address not letting other residents exit with them and to notify staff of any incidents of the alarm sounding or other residents trying to exit with them. On 06/13/2023 as of 5:30 p.m., facility door codes would have been changed, and only designated staff would have access to the facility's door codes. The facility's main entrance would be designated as an entrance/exit for residents and family members. As of 06/13/2023, a staff member would be designated to supervise this entrance with shifts of 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. In-serviced staff not to share code. Designate staff would allow entrance and exit to the facility. Monitored use of code by observation 15 minutes a day 3 days a week x 4 weeks ending on 07/11/2023. Every two hours monitoring of resident's at risk for elopement. Assessed resident's at risk for elopement would determine if increased supervision is needed, on a resident by resident basis, completed on 06/13/2023 by 5:00 p.m. After assessments completed, if determined the need of increase supervision for resident, it would be initiated on the residents that demonstrated increased wandering behaviors at the time. At the time the resident displayed the behaviors, the resident would be moved to an area of high traffic for monitoring by direct supervision from staff. When residents started to wander, education would be initiated on redirecting resident and to provide direct supervision of resident. High Risk residents will be reassessed weekly for 4 weeks. 4. The Administrator reviewed the completed the safe survey checks on 06/13/2023 to determine if any abuse, neglect or mistreatment had occurred. a. Safe Survey Elopement Checks would be reviewed by Administrator weekly for 30 days, then monthly thereafter. Any negative finding would be acted upon immediately. 5. After elopement investigation is completed by facility, it would be reviewed by Regional [NAME] President or Quality Improvement Nurse prior to closing the SIMS report. 6. Any negative findings from the Safe Survey Elopement Checks would be acted on by the Administrator immediately, then reported findings to the Q.A.P.I. weekly for 30 days, then monthly thereafter. This deficient practice had the likelihood to cause serious harm to the remaining 9 residents identified as elopement risks by the facility. Findings: Cross Reference F689 In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 3:15 p.m., S2DON stated elopement risk assessments are completed on admission, readmission, status changes, and quarterly. S2DON stated she was told Resident #96 was found outside. S2DON further stated Resident #96 got outside when another resident had the door open, and unsure how long Resident #96 was outside. S2DON stated when Resident #96 was assisted back inside the facility, the nurse ensured Resident #96's wanderguard was on. S2DON stated some cognitive residents have the door code. S2DON stated all staff are expected to provide increased supervision and be aware of residents who are identified as an elopement risk, location in the facility at all times. In an interview on 06/13/2023 at 8:45 a.m., S17Assistant Administrator stated the facility did not have any documented evidence that the incident on 02/09/2023 for Resident #96 was reviewed in the Quarterly Quality Assurance (QA) meeting held on 04/25/2023. In an interview on 06/13/2023 at 4:40 p.m., S13QI Nurse stated if Resident #96 did not have direct supervision while in the parking lot then the facility should have notified herself or the regional vice president to review the situation and determine whether a SIMS (state incident reporting system) report should have been completed. S13QINurse also stated she was not notified by the facility of the elopement incident on 02/09/2023. S13QI Nurse stated residents who are elopement risk should have increased supervision. S13QI Nurse stated the regional vice president or herself will oversee the administrator with weekly site visits for 4 weeks, at the end of the 4 weeks they will evaluate whether weekly site visits should be extended. In an interview on 06/13/2023 at 5:30 p.m., S13QI Nurse confirmed she in-serviced S1Adminstrator, S17Assistant Administrator, and S26Administrator on reporting reportable events. In an interview on 06/13/2023 at 5:35 p.m., S1Administrator stated the family members are allowed to have the code to enter the facility at any of the entrances because his facility is too big for him to control who comes in and out of it through one entrance. S1Adminstrator stated any resident in the facility who is cognitive or a safe smoker can have the code to the facility doors. S1Adminstrator stated his facility was not a 1 on 1 facility and they could not provide 24 hour continuous supervision for Resident #96. S1Administrator stated an incident of an elopement could occur at any point in his facility and there would be nothing he could do about it.
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to report an incident of neglect, which resulted in elopement, to the State Survey Agency for 1 (Resident #96) of 1 (Resident #96) sampled re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to report an incident of neglect, which resulted in elopement, to the State Survey Agency for 1 (Resident #96) of 1 (Resident #96) sampled residents who was identified as having eloped from the facility in a total sample of 10 residents (Resident #29, Resident #49, Resident #71, Resident #75, Resident #96, Resident #98 Resident #133, Resident #147, Resident #158, and Resident #159) identified as being at risk for elopement. Findings: Review of the facility's Wandering and Elopement Policy revealed, in part, when the resident returns to the facility, the director of nursing or charge nurse shall notify regulatory agencies per state guidelines as indicated. Review of the facility's Incident Report for Resident #96 dated 02/09/2023 at 5:00 p.m. revealed, in part, Resident #96 was found outside of the facility by staff. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 3:25 p.m., S1Administrator stated he was present in the facility when Resident #96 went out of Door A when the door was propped open by Resident #13 who was smoking in the front of the building. S1Administrator stated he did not complete a SIMS (Statewide Incident Management System) report since he did not consider Resident #96 exiting the facility a reportable event because Resident #96 was still on facility grounds. S1Administrator stated he did not have any documented evidence to dispute that the above mentioned incident was not considered an elopement. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 6:18 p.m., S18LPN stated on 02/09/2023 she left the facility when her shift ended at 3:00 p.m., to run an errand and did not see Resident #96 in the parking lot when she left the facility. S18LPN further stated when she passed back in front of the facility after her errand she noticed Resident #96 outside in the front parking lot heading toward the ambulance entrance. S18LPN stated she called the facility to let staff know Resident #96 was outside because she knew Resident #96 was confused. S18LPN stated she turned into the parking lot and prior to exiting her car the other staff were coming out the door to assist Resident #96 back in the facility. Observation on 06/13/2023 at 9:40 a.m. S18LPN escorted surveyor from Resident #96's previous room, which was located across the building, to the front of the facility and displayed the area where Resident #96 was found on 02/09/2023. Observation further revealed the area Resident #96 was found in was the front parking lot of the facility approximately 25 feet from the main highway, which was unable to be supervised by staff assigned to Resident #96. In an interview on 06/13/2023 at 4:40 p.m., S13QI Nurse stated if Resident #96 did not have direct supervision while in the parking lot then the facility should have notified herself or the regional vice president to review the situation and determine whether a SIMS (state incident reporting system) report should have been completed. S13QINurse also stated she was not notified by the facility of the elopement incident on 02/09/2023. In an interview on 06/13/2023 at 5:30 p.m., S13QI Nurse stated an investigation should be completed when residents are outside of the facility unsupervised.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to: 1.) maintain ongoing communication with the dialysis center, and 2.) to act upon the Registered Dietician's recommendations for 1 (Resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to: 1.) maintain ongoing communication with the dialysis center, and 2.) to act upon the Registered Dietician's recommendations for 1 (Resident #65) of 1 sampled resident investigated for dialysis services . Findings : Review of Resident #65's record revealed, in part, diagnoses of Chronic Kidney Disease, Diabetes, and End Stage Renal Disease. Review of Resident #65's June 2023 Physician's Orders revealed, in part, dialysis every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Review of Resident #65's Care Plan dated 10/13/2023 revealed, in part, assess vital signs upon return from dialysis, review communication form and address any new recommendations or orders. Further review revealed ongoing communication will continue between dialysis and facility to coordinate care. In an Interview on 06/12/2023 at 08:57 a.m., S5Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated Resident #65 goes to dialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Fridays. S5LPN stated she used the Nursing Facility/Dialysis Communication Sheet to document vital signs and any significant information prior to Resident #65 going to dialysis and sends the form with him. S5LPN further stated the dialysis clinic faxed the form back to nursing home daily. Review of Resident #65's record revealed the facility did not have Resident #65's Nursing Facility/Dialysis Communication Sheets for the following dates: 04/03/2023, 04/10/2023, 04/14/2023, 04/17/2023, 04/19/2023, 04/21/2023, 04/24/2023, 05/05/2023, 05/08/2023, 05/12/2023, 05/19/2023, 05/26/2023, 05/29/2023, 05/31/2023, 06/07/2023 and 06/09/2023. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 12:05 p.m., S4Medical Records Supervisor confirmed the facility did not have Resident #65's Nursing Facility/Dialysis Communication Sheets for the above listed dates. Review of Resident #65's June 2023 Physician Orders revealed, in part, liquid protein by mouth three times a day and nepro supplement one carton by mouth twice daily. Review of Resident #65's Registered Dietician(RD) note dated 05/09/2023 at 10:51 a.m. revealed a recommendation to decrease liquid protein to twice a day due to protein needs can be met via by mouth intake and twice daily protein supplementation. Further review revealed a recommendation to decrease Nepro to once a day. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 3:30 p.m., S3Dietary Manager(DM) stated the RD emailed a list of all recommendations to the Assistant Administrator, Director of Nursing, Assistant Director of Nursing, and herself. S3DM stated S2DON then had someone contact the physician to determine if they want to change the orders as recommended by the RD. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 3:31 p.m., S2DON stated S6Assistant Director of Nursing(ADON) was responsible to contact the physician to determine if they want to change orders as recommended by the RD. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 3:35pm, S6ADON stated she contacted Resident #65's physician at the end of May and left a message; however, the message had not been returned. S6ADON stated she had not attempted to re-contact the physician. In an interview on 06/12/2023 at 3:38 p.m., S2DON stated S6ADON should have contacted the physician to discuss the recommendation but failed to do so.
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

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 33% turnover. Below Louisiana's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $28,805 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 12 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $28,805 in fines. Higher than 94% of Louisiana facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade D (41/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 41/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Chateau Terrebonne Health's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns CHATEAU TERREBONNE HEALTH CARE CENTER 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 Chateau Terrebonne Health Staffed?

CMS rates CHATEAU TERREBONNE HEALTH CARE CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 33%, compared to the Louisiana average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Chateau Terrebonne Health?

State health inspectors documented 12 deficiencies at CHATEAU TERREBONNE HEALTH CARE CENTER during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 10 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Chateau Terrebonne Health?

CHATEAU TERREBONNE HEALTH CARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by PRIORITY MANAGEMENT, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 197 certified beds and approximately 149 residents (about 76% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in HOUMA, Louisiana.

How Does Chateau Terrebonne Health Compare to Other Louisiana Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Louisiana, CHATEAU TERREBONNE HEALTH CARE CENTER's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.4, staff turnover (33%) 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 Chateau Terrebonne Health?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Chateau Terrebonne Health Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, CHATEAU TERREBONNE HEALTH CARE CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Louisiana. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Chateau Terrebonne Health Stick Around?

CHATEAU TERREBONNE HEALTH CARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 33%, 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 Chateau Terrebonne Health Ever Fined?

CHATEAU TERREBONNE HEALTH CARE CENTER has been fined $28,805 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Louisiana average of $33,367. 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 Chateau Terrebonne Health on Any Federal Watch List?

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