LEGACY NURSING AND REHABILITATION OF POLLOCK
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Legacy Nursing and Rehabilitation of Pollock has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about its care quality. Ranking #219 out of 264 facilities in Louisiana places it in the bottom half, and it is the second of only two options in Grant County, meaning families have limited choices. Although the facility has shown improvement in reducing issues from 10 in 2024 to 5 in 2025, it still faces serious challenges. Staffing is rated below average with a 52% turnover rate, which can disrupt resident care. In terms of specific incidents, the facility failed to ensure proper supervision for residents at risk of elopement, leading to a critical situation where a resident with dementia exited the facility unnoticed and was found near a busy highway. Additionally, another resident did not receive the necessary one-on-one observation as required, which could impact their well-being. Overall, while there are some signs of progress, families should weigh these serious deficiencies against the available strengths when considering this nursing home.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Louisiana
- #219/264
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 52% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $13,020 in fines. Lower than most Louisiana facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 11 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Louisiana. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 26 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
Near Louisiana avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 26 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 F0744
(Tag F0744)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a diagnosis of dementia received the appropriate treatment and services to attain or maintain his or h...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2025
4 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
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's comprehensive person-centered care plan was implemented by failing to administer an antidepressant medication as ordere...
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
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's care plan was revised by failing to update fall interventions after each fall for 1 (#2) of 2 (#1 and #2) residents rev...
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
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide services that meet professional standard of practice for 2 (#1 and #2) of 2 sampled residents with falls. The facility failed to en...
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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing and prev...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2024
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
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards for 1 (Resident #3) of 3 (Resident #1, Resident #2, and Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
6 deficiencies
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who are unable to carry out ADLS (Ac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to include the Medical Director or designee in the Quality Assessment and Assurance process. Total sample size was 31.
Findings:
Review of the...
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 observation, record review, and interview, 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 →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure services were provided to meet professional standards. The facility failed to:
1. Ensure controlled medications were adm...
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 meet the nutritional needs of residents in accordance with established national guidelines. The facility failed to follow the ...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that pureed foods were prepared by methods which conserved nutritional value for 9 Residents who were ordered and serve...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
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 residents who were unable to carry out ADLs (Activities of D...
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 F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to have sufficient staff to attain or maintain the highes...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of sexual abuse was reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, to the State Surve...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
2 deficiencies
2 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 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 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to increase supervision of residents at risk for elopement...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 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 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the failed to be administered in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
3 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, interview and record review the Facility failed to ensure a Resident was treated with respect and dignity ...
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
Based on interview the facility failed to make efforts to document and resolve grievances for 1 (#42) of 1 sampled residents reviewed for grievances out of a total of 15 sampled residents.
Findings:
...
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, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The facility fai...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2022
6 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 and interview, the facility failed to maintain a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, by failing to ensure blinds did not have missing and bent blades and were functioni...
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** Resident #42
Review of Resident #42's clinical record revealed an admission date of 4/21/2022 with admitting diagnoses that incl...
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
Based on record review and interview the Facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 (Resident #299) of 1 sampled Resident who was a smoker. Findings:
Revi...
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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide respiratory care consistent with professional standards for 3 (Resident #9, Resident #22 and Resident #45) of 3 residen...
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 interview the facility failed to ensure that expired medications /biologicals were not available for use/administration to residents on 1 of 2 medication carts. Findings:
Obse...
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 observation, and interview the facility failed to follow infection control practices to prevent the development and transmission of COVID-19. The facility failed to develop a policy that incl...
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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 26 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $13,020 in fines. Above average for Louisiana. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade F (14/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Legacy Nursing And Rehabilitation Of Pollock's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns LEGACY NURSING AND REHABILITATION OF POLLOCK 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 Legacy Nursing And Rehabilitation Of Pollock Staffed?
CMS rates LEGACY NURSING AND REHABILITATION OF POLLOCK's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 52%, compared to the Louisiana average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Legacy Nursing And Rehabilitation Of Pollock?
State health inspectors documented 26 deficiencies at LEGACY NURSING AND REHABILITATION OF POLLOCK during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 24 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 Legacy Nursing And Rehabilitation Of Pollock?
LEGACY NURSING AND REHABILITATION OF POLLOCK 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 103 certified beds and approximately 84 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in POLLOCK, Louisiana.
How Does Legacy Nursing And Rehabilitation Of Pollock Compare to Other Louisiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Louisiana, LEGACY NURSING AND REHABILITATION OF POLLOCK's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.4, staff turnover (52%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Legacy Nursing And Rehabilitation Of Pollock?
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 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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Legacy Nursing And Rehabilitation Of Pollock Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, LEGACY NURSING AND REHABILITATION OF POLLOCK 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 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 Legacy Nursing And Rehabilitation Of Pollock Stick Around?
LEGACY NURSING AND REHABILITATION OF POLLOCK has a staff turnover rate of 52%, which is 6 percentage points above the Louisiana average of 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 Legacy Nursing And Rehabilitation Of Pollock Ever Fined?
LEGACY NURSING AND REHABILITATION OF POLLOCK has been fined $13,020 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Louisiana average of $33,209. 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 Legacy Nursing And Rehabilitation Of Pollock on Any Federal Watch List?
LEGACY NURSING AND REHABILITATION OF POLLOCK 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.