TRI-COMMUNITY NURSING CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Tri-Community Nursing Center in Palmetto, Louisiana, has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. They rank #168 out of 264 facilities in Louisiana, placing them in the bottom half, and #6 out of 7 in St. Landry County, meaning only one local option is better. While the facility is improving, as issues have decreased from 9 in 2024 to 4 in 2025, there are still serious concerns, including $243,354 in fines, which is higher than 96% of Louisiana facilities, suggesting repeated compliance problems. Staffing is rated average with a 39% turnover rate, which is lower than the state average, but there have been critical incidents such as a resident being injured during transport due to improper wheelchair securing, highlighting serious safety lapses. Additionally, the facility failed to submit accurate staffing information, raising concerns about their ability to provide proper care.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Louisiana
- #168/264
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 39% turnover. Near Louisiana's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $243,354 in fines. Higher than 71% of Louisiana facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 16 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Louisiana. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 22 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 (39%)
9 points below Louisiana average of 48%
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Near Louisiana average (2.4)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Louisiana avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Well above median ($33,413)
Significant penalties indicating serious issues
The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
1 deficiency
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
Deficiency F0602
(Tag F0602)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's right to be free from financial exploitation for 1 (#1) of 3 (#1, #2, #3) sampled residents. The facility's census wa...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2025
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to supervise and monitor assistive devices to prevent a...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and interview, the facility failed to provide appropriate and sufficient services, treatmen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to electronically submit accurate payroll information for direct care staffing as required. This deficient practice had the potential to affec...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0572
(Tag F0572)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to inform Resident #254 and his RP (resident representative) of the resident's rights by failing to complete an admission packet during the ad...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the nurse informed the physician of low blood pressure readi...
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 interviews, the facility failed to accurately assess Resident #4's dental status out of a sample of 2...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
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 reassess the resident's pain level after administering pain medica...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure menus met the nutritional needs of the residents and were followed as evidenced by kitchen staff failing to:
1) Have k...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 and interviews, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the 54 residents who resided in the facility.
Fi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to maintain a homelike environment for 4 (#6, #20, #26 and #38) out of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service by failing to ensure all stored food items in the facil...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to electronically submit payroll information for direct care staffing as required.
Findings:
Review of the PBJ (Payroll Based Journal) Staff...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of the resident's ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
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 submit a written notice of emergency transfers to a representative ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
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 ensure that a resident received necessary treatment an...
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 ensure that respiratory care services were provided c...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environmen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
4 deficiencies
2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL
(K)
📢 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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' environment were as free of acciden...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(K)
📢 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
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review, and interview; the facility failed to administer its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well...
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to report an incident that resulted in hospitalization after a resident fell from the facility's van lift to the State Survey Agency within 24...
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
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement appropriate plans of action after a transportation incident occurred and resulted in injury for 1 (#3) out of 8 (#1-#...
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?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 39% turnover. Below Louisiana's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $243,354 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 22 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $243,354 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Louisiana. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (11/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Tri-Community Nursing Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns TRI-COMMUNITY NURSING 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 Tri-Community Nursing Center Staffed?
CMS rates TRI-COMMUNITY NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 39%, compared to the Louisiana average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Tri-Community Nursing Center?
State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at TRI-COMMUNITY NURSING CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 20 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 Tri-Community Nursing Center?
TRI-COMMUNITY NURSING CENTER 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 108 certified beds and approximately 49 residents (about 45% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in PALMETTO, Louisiana.
How Does Tri-Community Nursing Center Compare to Other Louisiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Louisiana, TRI-COMMUNITY NURSING CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.4, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Tri-Community Nursing 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?" "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 facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is Tri-Community Nursing Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, TRI-COMMUNITY NURSING 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 Tri-Community Nursing Center Stick Around?
TRI-COMMUNITY NURSING CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 39%, 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 Tri-Community Nursing Center Ever Fined?
TRI-COMMUNITY NURSING CENTER has been fined $243,354 across 2 penalty actions. This is 6.9x the Louisiana average of $35,512. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.
Is Tri-Community Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?
TRI-COMMUNITY NURSING 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.