THE GARDENS AND GUARDIAN
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Gardens and Guardian has received a Trust Grade of F, which indicates significant concerns and a poor overall rating. Ranking #254 out of 264 facilities in Louisiana places it in the bottom half of the state, and it is the lowest-ranked facility in Calcasieu County. Although the facility's trend is improving, with reported issues decreasing from seven in 2024 to one in 2025, it still has a high staffing turnover rate of 61%, well above the Louisiana average of 47%. The facility has faced fines totaling $20,000, which is average, but there are serious concerns regarding cleanliness and infection control. Specific incidents include a critical failure to maintain a sanitary kitchen, posing a risk for foodborne illnesses, and a lack of proper personal protective equipment for laundry staff handling contaminated items, which could potentially affect many residents. While there is some RN coverage, overall staffing and quality indicators suggest that families should carefully consider these issues when evaluating this nursing home.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Louisiana
- #254/264
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 61% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $20,000 in fines. Higher than 98% of Louisiana facilities. Major compliance failures.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 18 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Louisiana. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 16 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
Below Louisiana average (2.4)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
15pts above Louisiana avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
13 points above Louisiana average of 48%
The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record
Mar 2025
1 deficiency
1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL
(L)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents
⚠️ Facility-wide issue
Based on observations, interviews, and policy and procedure reviews, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen to prevent cross contamination and the high likelihood of foodborne il...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
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 follow its policy regarding advance directives evidenced by failing...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
MDS Data Transmission
(Tag F0640)
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 complete a discharge MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment for 1 (#13) ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
5 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
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #3
Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Cerebrovascular Disease, Acute Kidney Fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that services were provided as outlined in the physician's o...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that pharmaceutical services provided to meet the needs of each resident were consistent with state and federal requirements and refl...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that pharmaceutical services provided to meet the needs of ea...
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
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of facility's policy and procedure, record review and interview, the facility failed to effectively implement and monitor the facility's Performance Improvement Project (PIP) implement...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
2 deficiencies
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) assessment fo...
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 observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the correct prescribed dosage of medication was administered to residents. The facility had a census of 37 residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
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
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and policy review the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse in a sanitary manner and to prevent the harborage and feeding of pests. This deficient practice ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, interviews and policy review, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control and prevention program and implement accepted infection control practices to help to...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2022
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
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 that acceptable parameters of nutritional status was mainta...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0947
(Tag F0947)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews and record reviews, the required in-service training for nurse aides failed to include documented evidence 3 (S7CNA, S8CNA, S9CNA) of 3 certified nursing assistants (CNAs) had deme...
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, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control and prevention program and implement accepted infection control practices to help ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the drugs and biologicals used in the facility were not labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, as evidenced by hav...
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: 1 life-threatening violation(s), Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 16 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $20,000 in fines. Above average for Louisiana. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade F (26/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is The Gardens And Guardian's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns THE GARDENS AND GUARDIAN an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 The Gardens And Guardian Staffed?
CMS rates THE GARDENS AND GUARDIAN's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 61%, which is 15 percentage points above the Louisiana average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 67%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at The Gardens And Guardian?
State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at THE GARDENS AND GUARDIAN during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 14 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates The Gardens And Guardian?
THE GARDENS AND GUARDIAN is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 60 certified beds and approximately 40 residents (about 67% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LAKE CHARLES, Louisiana.
How Does The Gardens And Guardian Compare to Other Louisiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Louisiana, THE GARDENS AND GUARDIAN's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.4, staff turnover (61%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Gardens And Guardian?
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 The Gardens And Guardian Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, THE GARDENS AND GUARDIAN has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-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 The Gardens And Guardian Stick Around?
Staff turnover at THE GARDENS AND GUARDIAN is high. At 61%, the facility is 15 percentage points above the Louisiana average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 67%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. 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 The Gardens And Guardian Ever Fined?
THE GARDENS AND GUARDIAN has been fined $20,000 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Louisiana average of $33,279. 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 The Gardens And Guardian on Any Federal Watch List?
THE GARDENS AND GUARDIAN 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.