HERITAGE MANOR OF HOUMA
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Heritage Manor of Houma has a Trust Grade of C+, which means it is decent and slightly above average compared to other facilities. It ranks #75 out of 264 nursing homes in Louisiana, putting it in the top half, and #3 out of 4 in Terrebonne County, indicating only one local option is better. The facility’s trend is stable, with 7 issues reported consistently over the last two years. Staffing is a concern here, with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 42%, which is slightly better than the state average. There have been no fines, which is a positive sign, and the facility offers average RN coverage, ensuring some level of oversight by registered nurses. However, there are notable weaknesses. Recent inspections revealed that staff failed to maintain proper hygiene in the kitchen, such as not wearing hair restraints and not labeling food correctly. Additionally, a resident was not assisted with oral care as needed, resulting in a buildup of an unknown substance on their teeth. Lastly, an ice machine was found to be unsanitary, with unclean conditions that could pose health risks. These issues highlight a need for improvement in cleanliness and patient care practices.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Louisiana
- #75/264
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 42% turnover. Near Louisiana's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Louisiana facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 12 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Louisiana. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (42%)
6 points below Louisiana average of 48%
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Above Louisiana average (2.4)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Louisiana avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure care plan interventions were implemented for a resident at risk for falls for 1 (Resident #8) of 1 (Resident #8) samp...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's indwelling urinary catheter collection bag was not touching the floor for 1 (Resident #67) of 1 (Resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to:1. Ensure the correct enteral feeding (a type of liquid nutritional supplement that is typically given through a tube direc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's oxygen tubing was maintained in a sanitary manner per facility policy for 1 (Resident #14) of 1 (Resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) was accurately documented for 5 (Resident #8, Resident #13, Resident #1...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to:1. Post the appropriate signage for contact isolation on a resident's door (Resident #4, Resident #5);2. Ensure Certified ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to:1. Ensure staff wore hair restraints when preparing food in the facilities kitchen (S12Dietary Manager's Trainer, S13Dieta...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice (SNFABN), form Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)-10055, was...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to provide a bed-hold notice upon hospital transfer for 2 (Resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder was...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a Level 1 Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) was accurately completed to reflect a resident's mental illness for...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident was assisted for oral care as needed for 1 (Resident #7) of 1 (Resident #7) sampled residents reviewed f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to maintain the facility's ice machine in a sanitary manner for 1 (Ice Machine f) of 4 (Ice Machine c, Ice Machine d, Ice Machine e, and Ice Ma...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff cleaned the shower chairs between resident use with an approved disinfectant for 2 (Shower Room a and Shower R...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received their medications according to the plan o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record reviews and interviews the facility failed to maintain an accurate Individual Resident Narcotics Record by using correction tape/liquid and by not drawing a line through the error and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to store food in a manner to prevent the possibility of food contamination. This deficient practice has the potential to effect a total of 116 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to accurately document administration of medications by:
1. Failed to document Norco 5-325 mg (milligram) tablet was administered to Resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
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
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Louisiana facilities.
- • 42% turnover. Below Louisiana's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Heritage Manor Of Houma's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns HERITAGE MANOR OF HOUMA 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 Heritage Manor Of Houma Staffed?
CMS rates HERITAGE MANOR OF HOUMA's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 42%, compared to the Louisiana average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Heritage Manor Of Houma?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at HERITAGE MANOR OF HOUMA during 2023 to 2025. These included: 18 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Heritage Manor Of Houma?
HERITAGE MANOR OF HOUMA 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 THE BEEBE FAMILY, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 115 residents (about 96% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in HOUMA, Louisiana.
How Does Heritage Manor Of Houma Compare to Other Louisiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Louisiana, HERITAGE MANOR OF HOUMA's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.4, staff turnover (42%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Heritage Manor Of Houma?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.
Is Heritage Manor Of Houma Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, HERITAGE MANOR OF HOUMA has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Louisiana. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Heritage Manor Of Houma Stick Around?
HERITAGE MANOR OF HOUMA has a staff turnover rate of 42%, 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 Heritage Manor Of Houma Ever Fined?
HERITAGE MANOR OF HOUMA has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Heritage Manor Of Houma on Any Federal Watch List?
HERITAGE MANOR OF HOUMA 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.