CAMELOT BROOKSIDE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Camelot Brookside in Jennings, Louisiana has a Trust Grade of B, indicating a good quality of care and services. Ranked #31 out of 264 facilities in the state, they are in the top half, and #2 out of 4 in Jefferson Davis County means only one local option is better. The facility is showing an improving trend, with issues decreasing from 9 in 2024 to 8 in 2025. However, staffing is a weakness, rated at 2 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 49%, which is average for Louisiana. Notably, there have been concerns regarding infection control, such as staff exiting resident rooms while still wearing soiled gloves, and the cleanliness of living spaces has also been called into question, with observed issues like improperly stored urinals. While the facility does not have any fines on record, which is a positive sign, families should weigh these strengths and weaknesses when considering care options.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Louisiana
- #31/264
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 49% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Louisiana facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 10 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Louisiana. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Louisiana avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record
Mar 2025
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain a clean and homelike environment for 1 (#10) out of 5 (#4, #10, #35, #66, and #77) investigated for environment.
...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Deficiency Text Not Available
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #102
Review of Resident #102's medical record revealed she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not lim...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident and/or a resident's RP (Responsible Party) was invited to the resident's care planning meeting for 1 (Resident #111...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Deficiency Text Not Available
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure an activity program was being conducted for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that medications were stored and labeled properly in accordance with current accepted professional standards by having loose medicati...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
2 deficiencies
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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to implement the resident's comprehensive plan of care to provide t...
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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 3 (#1, #2, #3) out of 3 (#1, #2, #3) sampled residents. The deficient practice h...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
7 deficiencies
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
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
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 ensure a resident was treated with respect and dignit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review of the facility's policy and procedure, and interviews, the facility failed to develop a comprehe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to serve palatable food at an appetizing temperature for 1 (#115) of 49 sampled residents.
Findings:
Review of the facility's grievance log re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, review of the facility's policy and procedure, and interviews, the facility failed to ensur...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure pureed menus and recipes were followed.
This failure had the potential to contribute to an unpleasant dining experienc...
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, record review or review of policy and procedure and interviews, the facility failed to store, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food servi...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #98
Review of the facility's policy, Wound Care, revealed in part, the following: The purpose of this procedure is to p...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's environment was a safe, functional, sanitary and comfortable by failing to:
1.
ensure that 4 (#4, #10, #11, #48) out ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to refer residents with newly diagnosed mental disorders or had a sign...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 02/13/2023 during interviews with Residents #5, #52, and #59, they stated they were served cold food at meal times.
On 02/14...
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure opened liquids were labeled and dated in the refrigerator. This had the potential to affect a total of 105 residents t...
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.
- • 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Camelot Brookside's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns CAMELOT BROOKSIDE 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 Camelot Brookside Staffed?
CMS rates CAMELOT BROOKSIDE's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 49%, compared to the Louisiana average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Camelot Brookside?
State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at CAMELOT BROOKSIDE during 2023 to 2025. These included: 21 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Camelot Brookside?
CAMELOT BROOKSIDE 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 120 certified beds and approximately 112 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in JENNINGS, Louisiana.
How Does Camelot Brookside Compare to Other Louisiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Louisiana, CAMELOT BROOKSIDE's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.4, staff turnover (49%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Camelot Brookside?
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 Camelot Brookside Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, CAMELOT BROOKSIDE 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 Camelot Brookside Stick Around?
CAMELOT BROOKSIDE has a staff turnover rate of 49%, 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 Camelot Brookside Ever Fined?
CAMELOT BROOKSIDE 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 Camelot Brookside on Any Federal Watch List?
CAMELOT BROOKSIDE 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.