KAPLAN HEALTHCARE CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Kaplan Healthcare Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor overall reputation. It ranks #133 out of 264 facilities in Louisiana, placing it in the bottom half, and #5 out of 6 in Vermilion County, meaning only one local facility is rated lower. The trend is improving, with the number of issues decreasing from 10 in 2023 to 7 in 2024, but staffing remains a significant weakness with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 59%, which is concerning compared to the state average of 47%. There have been recent fines totaling $40,243, which is average, but the facility has faced serious incidents, such as failing to provide necessary anticoagulant medication for a resident for 39 days, leading to an emergency hospitalization, and instances of physical harm among residents due to inadequate supervision. While there are some strengths, such as maintaining average RN coverage, the overall picture suggests families should approach with caution.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Louisiana
- #133/264
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 59% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $40,243 in fines. Lower than most Louisiana facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 14 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Louisiana. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 21 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
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Near Louisiana average (2.4)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
12pts above Louisiana avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
11 points above Louisiana average of 48%
The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record
Nov 2024
7 deficiencies
2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL
(K)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, observations and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident was provided nursing services an...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(K)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided according to p...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to notify the physician and/or NP (Nurse Practitioner) of a resident's invasive procdure for IVC (Inferior Vena Cava) filter removal for 1 (R...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 alleged violation of its failure to provide care to a resident necessary to avoid physical harm to designated state agency for 1...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to accurately code the resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) for antipsych...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to provide appropriate pharmaceutical services, by not properly disposing of a contaminated sharp, observed during medication administration.
...
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 and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control and prevention program by failing to ensure staff performed hand hygiene when indicated according t...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that each resident with urinary catheters had ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 interviews and observations, the facility failed to maintain a homelike environment for 1 (#22) out of 3 (#22, #36, and #39) residents investigated for a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelik...
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 and interviews, the facility failed to ensure 1 (#37) out of 2 (#32 and #37) residents were administered ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional ...
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 store food in accordance with professional standards for food service and failed to ensure sanitary conditions were maintaine...
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 observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control and prevention program by:
1.
Failing to ensure that contract staff wore gloves while changing a d...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain an effective antibiotic stewardship program to monitor antibiotic use by failing to obtain culture reports, sensitivity data, and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who was unable to carry out AD...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interviews, the facility failed to protect the residents' rights to be free from physica...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 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
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who required respiratory care was provided c...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2022
4 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to revise the comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident #38...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure that 2 (#7, #45) of 35 sampled residents who w...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews and record review, the facility's nursing services failed to demonstrate appropriate competenci...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0888
(Tag F0888)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the medical exemption indicated which COVID-19 (coronavirus 19) vaccine was clinically contraindicated for 1 (S3CNA) of 1 staff gran...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $40,243 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 21 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $40,243 in fines. Higher than 94% of Louisiana facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (11/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Kaplan Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns KAPLAN HEALTHCARE CENTER an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Louisiana, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Kaplan Healthcare Center Staffed?
CMS rates KAPLAN HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 59%, which is 12 percentage points above the Louisiana average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Kaplan Healthcare Center?
State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at KAPLAN HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2022 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 18 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 Kaplan Healthcare Center?
KAPLAN HEALTHCARE 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 NEXION HEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 113 certified beds and approximately 70 residents (about 62% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in KAPLAN, Louisiana.
How Does Kaplan Healthcare Center Compare to Other Louisiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Louisiana, KAPLAN HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.4, staff turnover (59%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Kaplan Healthcare Center?
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?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Kaplan Healthcare Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, KAPLAN HEALTHCARE 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 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Kaplan Healthcare Center Stick Around?
Staff turnover at KAPLAN HEALTHCARE CENTER is high. At 59%, the facility is 12 percentage points above the Louisiana average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Kaplan Healthcare Center Ever Fined?
KAPLAN HEALTHCARE CENTER has been fined $40,243 across 3 penalty actions. The Louisiana average is $33,481. 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 Kaplan Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?
KAPLAN HEALTHCARE 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.