LANDMARK OF ACADIANA
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Landmark of Acadiana has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families, as it ranks solidly above average. It is ranked #43 out of 264 nursing homes in Louisiana, placing it in the top half of facilities statewide, and it is the best option out of two in St. Martin County. The facility is improving, having reduced its compliance issues from nine in 2023 to six in 2025. Staffing is a strength, with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a low turnover rate of 27%, which is significantly better than the state average of 47%. However, there are concerns regarding food safety practices, as inspectors found instances of improperly stored food, including expired items and unlabeled opened products, which could affect resident health. Overall, while there are notable strengths, families should consider the food safety issues when researching this facility.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Louisiana
- #43/264
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 27% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 21 points below Louisiana's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Louisiana facilities.
- 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
- 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Low Staff Turnover (27%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (27%)
21 points below Louisiana average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record
Jan 2025
6 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 record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to call light device was in reach for 2 (#49 and #86)...
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's assessment accurately reflected the resident's ...
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 reviews and interviews, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 (#67) of ...
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 a resident who was visually impaired received...
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 reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to accurately document on the Nurse Data Collection a...
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 and interview, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service, and ensure sanitary conditions were maintained in the kitchen as evid...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to refer residents with a newly diagnosed mental disorder to the appropriate state-designated authority for Level II PASARR (Preadmission Scre...
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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that services were provided as ordered by th...
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 observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the nursing staff demonstrated specific comp...
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 and interview, the facility failed to follow their scheduled lunch menu for all residents who received a pureed diet. The deficient practice had the potential to affect all that r...
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 observation and interview, the facility failed to protect confidential information for 1 (Resident #88) out of 43 sampl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #56
Resident #56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety Dis...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
3 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
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 notify the residents' responsible party representatives of a fall f...
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #4:
Review of the record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses include...
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 F0726
(Tag F0726)
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 ensure that nursing staff possess competencies and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to protect confidential information for Resident #70 by failing to enable the computers privacy screen during a medication pass.
Findings:
Revie...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent the possible onset and spread of infection by...
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, review and interview, the facility failed to ensure food products that were stored in the dry storage room were dated when the package was opened this deficient practice has the ...
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.
- • 27% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 21 points below Louisiana's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Landmark Of Acadiana's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns LANDMARK OF ACADIANA 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 Landmark Of Acadiana Staffed?
CMS rates LANDMARK OF ACADIANA's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 27%, compared to the Louisiana average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Landmark Of Acadiana?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at LANDMARK OF ACADIANA during 2022 to 2025. These included: 18 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Landmark Of Acadiana?
LANDMARK OF ACADIANA 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 THE BEEBE FAMILY, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 124 certified beds and approximately 119 residents (about 96% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in SAINT MARTINVILLE, Louisiana.
How Does Landmark Of Acadiana Compare to Other Louisiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Louisiana, LANDMARK OF ACADIANA's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.4, staff turnover (27%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Landmark Of Acadiana?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"
Is Landmark Of Acadiana Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, LANDMARK OF ACADIANA 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 Landmark Of Acadiana Stick Around?
Staff at LANDMARK OF ACADIANA tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 27%, the facility is 19 percentage points below the Louisiana average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 14%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.
Was Landmark Of Acadiana Ever Fined?
LANDMARK OF ACADIANA 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 Landmark Of Acadiana on Any Federal Watch List?
LANDMARK OF ACADIANA 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.