HIGH HOPE CARE CENTER

475 HIGH HOPE ROAD, SULPHUR, LA 70663 (337) 527-8140
For profit - Limited Liability company 101 Beds CHARLESTON HEALTHCARE GROUP Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
90/100
#7 of 264 in LA
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: February 2025

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

High Hope Care Center in Sulphur, Louisiana, has an impressive Trust Grade of A, indicating it is highly recommended and performs excellently compared to other facilities. It ranks #7 out of 264 nursing homes in Louisiana, placing it well within the top tier, and is the top choice among 10 facilities in Calcasieu County. The facility's performance has remained stable, with eight identified issues in both 2024 and 2025 but no critical or serious harm reported. However, staffing is a concern, rated at 2 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 43%, which is slightly better than the state average. Additionally, there were specific incidents where the facility failed to ensure proper dialysis services for a resident, did not notify the State's Long-Term Care Ombudsman of an emergency transfer, and did not refer a resident with a newly diagnosed mental disorder for further evaluation, highlighting areas needing improvement despite its overall strengths.

Trust Score
A
90/100
In Louisiana
#7/264
Top 2%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Holding Steady
3 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
43% turnover. Near Louisiana's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Louisiana facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 15 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Louisiana. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
○ Average
8 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2024: 3 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (43%)

    5 points below Louisiana average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 43%

Near Louisiana avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: CHARLESTON HEALTHCARE GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 8 deficiencies on record

Jul 2025 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

Deficiency F0628 (Tag F0628)

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 notify the State's Long-Term Care Ombudsman of emergency transfer...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to notify the State's Long-Term Care Ombudsman of emergency transfers in writing for 1 (#1) of 3 (#1, #2, #3) sampled residents reviewed for transfer and discharge requirements. Findings: Review of Resident #1's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed, in part, Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Further review of the EMR revealed Resident #1 had an emergency transfer to a local hospital on [DATE]. Review of the facility's Ombudsman notification list of emergency transfers dated 03/01/2025-03/31/2025, Resident #1's transfer on 03/04/2025 was not listed and there was no further evidence the Ombudsman had been notified of the transfer. On 07/09/2025 at 12:30 p.m., a concurrent records review and interview was conducted with S1SSD (Social Services Director). S1SSD confirmed that the accuracy of the State's Long-Term Care Ombudsman list of emergency transfers was her responsibility. S1SSD reviewed Resident #1's EMR and confirmed she had an emergency transfer on 03/04/2025. She then reviewed the Ombudsman list of emergency transfers and confirmed this emergency transfer was not listed and should have been as required. On 07/09/2025 at 1:00 p.m., a request was made for a policy regarding the notification of the State's Long-Term Care Ombudsman of emergency transfers. A policy was not provided by the time of exit.
Feb 2025 2 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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to refer residents with a newly diagnosed mental disorder to the appr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to refer residents with a newly diagnosed mental disorder to the appropriate state-designated authority for Level II PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) evaluation and determination for 1 (#36) out of 3(#31, #36, #53) sampled residents investigated for PASARR in a final sample of 33 residents. Findings: On 02/19/2025, a review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Assessment - Coordination with PASARR Program last reviewed January 2025, indicated 1. Negative Level I Screen permits admission to proceed and ends the PASARR process unless a possible serious mental disorder or intellectual disability arises later. 9. Any resident who exhibits a newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition will be referred promptly to the state mental health or intellectual disability authority for a level II resident review. A review of Resident #36's record revealed an admission date of 02/09/2022 with diagnoses that included in part, recurrent major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. A further review of Resident #36's record revealed a Level I PASARR dated 02/07/2022 determined a Level II was not required. Further review of Resident #36's hospital records revealed the resident admitted to an inpatient psychiatric hospital on [DATE]. The resident discharged to the facility on [DATE] with a new diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. A review of Resident #36's annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/27/2024 revealed in part, Section I1600 Active Diagnoses was marked to indicate the resident had a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Further review of Resident #36's records revealed no evidence that a Level II PASARR had been submitted to the appropriate state-designated authority after a new diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder on 07/27/2023. On 02/19/2025 at 10:14 AM, a record review was conducted with S1SW (Social Worker). She confirmed a Level I PASARR dated 02/07/2022 determined a Level II was not required. S1SW confirmed the resident had an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization with new diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder on 7/27/2023. She confirmed a PASARR was not submitted to the appropriate state-designated authority after a new diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents who required dialysis received such services consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 (Resident #25...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents who required dialysis received such services consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 (Resident #25) out of 1 (Resident #25) residents reviewed for dialysis services by failing to collaborate with the dialysis provider through dialysis communication forms. Findings: On 02/19/2025, a review of the facility's policy titled Hemodialysis, last reviewed January 2025, indicated; The facility will assure that each resident receives care and services for the provision of hemodialysis consistent with professional standards of practice. This will include: the ongoing assessment of the resident's condition and monitoring for complications before and after dialysis treatments received at a certified dialysis facility. A review of Resident #25's medical record revealed an admission date of 10/14/2020 with diagnosis that include, in part but not limited to; end stage renal disease, metabolic encephalopathy, and acute on chronic diastolic congestive heart failure. A review of Resident #25's Physicians orders revealed an order for the resident to attend hemodialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. A review of Resident #25's medical record revealed Dialysis Communication forms did not have post treatment vital signs on the following dates: 11/01/2024, 11/08/2024, 11/15/2024, 11/18/2024, 11/29/2024, 12/04/2024, 12/11/2024, 12/13/2024, 12/16/2024, 12/26/2024, 12/27,2024, 01/08/2025, 01/10/2025, 01/13/2025, 01/19/2025, 01/23/2025, 01/24/2025, 01/29/2025, 02/05/2025, 02/07/2025, and 02/10/2025. On 02/19/2025 at 8:24 AM, a concurrent records review and interview was conducted with S2LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse). S2LPN confirmed nursing staff is responsible for assessing Resident #25's complete vital signs before and after hemodialysis treatment and documenting them on the dialysis communication form. She reviewed Resident #25's dialysis communication binder and confirmed the assessment and documentation of vital signs were incomplete. On 02/19/2025 at 8:51 AM, a concurrent records review and interview was conducted with S3DON (Director of Nursing). S3DON confirmed the nursing staff is responsible for assessing Resident #25's complete vital signs before and after hemodialysis treatment and documenting them on the dialysis communication form. She reviewed Resident #25's dialysis communication binder and confirmed the assessment and documentation of vital signs were incomplete.
Feb 2024 3 deficiencies
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 notify the State Long Term Care Ombudsman of facility-initiated tra...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the State Long Term Care Ombudsman of facility-initiated transfers for 1 (Resident #73) out of 3 (#17, #56, #73) sampled residents. The deficient practice has the potential to affect a census of 92. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Discharge the Resident, read in part, #5. For each emergency to the hospital, the SSD (Social Service Designee) will report to state ombudsman, in a monthly report and documented on the emergency transfer log. Review of Resident #73's medical record revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that read in part; Partial Traumatic Amputation of Right Foot, Level Unspecified, Aphasia, Acute Osteomyelitis Right Ankle and Foot, Metabolic Encephalopathy, Cerebral Vascular Accident, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Major Depressive Disorder and Anxiety. Review of Resident #73's nurses' notes revealed on 01/11/2024 at 1:30 p.m., the resident was sent to the hospital and returned to the facility on [DATE] at 2:00 a.m. Review of the Emergency Transfer Log for January 2024 revealed no documented evidence that Resident #73's transfer to the hospital on [DATE] was not identified on the log. On 02/19/2024 at 1:45 p.m., an interview was conducted with S2SSD. She confirmed she is responsible for completing the emergency transfer log and sending it monthly to the Ombudsman. S2SSD reviewed the Resident #73's EMR (Electronic Medical Record) and confirmed the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE]. She reviewed the emergency transfer log for January 2024 and confirmed the resident was not listed as an emergency transfer on 01/11/2024 and should have been.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record reviews and interview, the facility failed to ensure there was a sufficient number of skilled licensed nurses, nurse aides, and other nursing personnel to provide care and respond to e...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews and interview, the facility failed to ensure there was a sufficient number of skilled licensed nurses, nurse aides, and other nursing personnel to provide care and respond to each resident's basic needs. The facility failed to provide the minimum required staffing hours for 2 of 13 weekends reviewed. Findings: Review of the facility's PBJ (Payroll Based Journal) Staffing Data Report for FY (Fiscal Year) Quarter 4 2023 (July 1 to September 30) revealed the submitted weekend staffing data was excessively low. Review of the facility's staffing pattern reports for the month of November 2023 revealed the facility provided 200.68 hours on 11/05/2023 and were required to provide 220.9 hours. Further review revealed the facility provided 195.71 hours on 11/12/2023 and was required to provide 204.45 hours. On 02/20/2024 at 3:30 p.m., an interview was conducted with S5ADM (Administrator). S5ADM reviewed the facility's staffing pattern for the month of November 2023 and acknowledged the facility did not provide the minimum hours required on 11/05/2023 and 11/12/2023.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety as evidenced by failing to ensure that dietary ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety as evidenced by failing to ensure that dietary staff utilized the appropriate facial hair covering while working in the kitchen and food service area. This deficiency had the potential to affect 90 residents who consumed food prepared in the kitchen. Findings: A review of the facility's Policy and Procedure titled Employee Hygiene and Personal Cleanliness was conducted. The policy included, in part: Employees must wear a hairnet at all times, covering all hair. On 02/18/2024 at 8:45 a.m., an observation was conducted of S4DA (Dietary Aide) working in the kitchen washing dishes. S4DA was observed with a full beard and mustache that was not covered. On 02/18/2024 at 10:30 a.m., a follow up visit to the kitchen was performed. An observation was conducted of S4DA as he worked in and around the food service line area as food was being prepared for the lunch meal without a facial hair net covering his beard. S3DM (Dietary Manager) was present during this observation but did not instruct him to apply a facial hair cover at that time. On 02/18/2024 at 11:35 a.m., an observation was conducted of S4DA as he handled the food and drinks for the residents' lunch trays. No facial hair covering was observed on S4DA's face. On 02/18/2024 at 11:40 a.m., an interview was conducted with S3DM. S3DM confirmed there was a policy for hair covering in the food service area. She confirmed that S4DA should have worn a beard restraint, which was the appropriate facial hair covering, but had failed to do so while working in the kitchen and food service area.
Jan 2023 2 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 interviews, the facility failed to implement physician's order to obtain blood pressure measurements ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to implement physician's order to obtain blood pressure measurements twice daily as ordered for 1 ( #27) of 27 sampled residents. Findings: Resident #27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to, Congestive Heart Failure, Hypertension, and End Stage Renal Disease. Further review of Resident #27's record revealed the resident had dialysis scheduled on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Review of Resident #27 physician's orders dated 01/10/2023 revealed the following order: B/P (blood pressure) BID (two times a day) for Hypertension (high blood pressure). Review of the January 2023 TAR (Treatment Administration Record), revealed no documentation of blood pressures or initials of a nurse, as ordered, since start date of 01/10/2023. Further review of the medical record revealed no documentation of blood pressures documented twice per day. In an interview on 01/25/2023 at 11:00 a.m., with S6LPN, she stated that she did not see where this information was being documented. She stated that she took Resident #27's blood pressure before and after dialysis. In an interview on 01/25/2023 at 03:30 p.m. with S1DON, she stated that after looking through the record of Resident #27 there was no documentation of blood pressures done twice per day. She confirmed the blood pressures ordered for twice per day on Resident #27 were not done.
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 record review and interviews, the facility failed to accurately maintain resident records by failing to document weekly weights for 1 (#72) out of 2 (#72, #73) sampled residents. Findings: R...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to accurately maintain resident records by failing to document weekly weights for 1 (#72) out of 2 (#72, #73) sampled residents. Findings: Review of the facility's policy Charting and Documentation revealed in part: The following information is to be documented in the resident medical record: .Treatment and services performed . Review of the facility's policy Weight monitoring revealed in part: A weight schedule will be developed upon admission for all residents: .Residents with weight loss - monitor weight weekly. Review of Resident #72's medical record revealed a readmit date of 09/02/2022 with diagnoses including Depression, Anxiety, Cerebral Vascular Accident, Dysphagia, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Hypertension and Muscle Weakness. A review the physician's orders, dated 09/02/2022, revealed an order for weekly weights every Friday, discontinued on 01/12/2023, with a new order, dated 01/12/2023, for weekly weights. Review of Resident #72's weight record revealed the last documented weight was 134.8 pounds on 12/05/2022. On 01/25/2023 at 10:00 a.m., an interview was conducted with S2LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse), she confirmed Resident #72 had an order for weekly weights and there was no weight documented in resident record after 12/05/2022. On 01/25/2023 at 10:18 a.m., an interview was conducted with S1DON (Director of Nursing), she confirmed resident #72 had an order for weekly weights and the weekly weights had not been documented in Resident #72's medical record since 12/05/2022. She reported all weights or residents' refusal to be weighed were to be documented in the resident's record as ordered. S1DON also reported the LPN's were responsible for ensuring the weekly weights were done on residents and recorded in the medical record.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

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

Strengths
  • • Grade A (90/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Louisiana.
  • • 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.
  • • 43% turnover. Below Louisiana's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • No significant concerns identified. This facility shows no red flags across CMS ratings, staff turnover, or federal penalties.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is High Hope's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns HIGH HOPE CARE CENTER an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 High Hope Staffed?

CMS rates HIGH HOPE CARE CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the Louisiana average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at High Hope?

State health inspectors documented 8 deficiencies at HIGH HOPE CARE CENTER during 2023 to 2025. These included: 8 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates High Hope?

HIGH HOPE CARE 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 CHARLESTON HEALTHCARE GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 101 certified beds and approximately 92 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in SULPHUR, Louisiana.

How Does High Hope Compare to Other Louisiana Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Louisiana, HIGH HOPE CARE CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.4, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting High Hope?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.

Is High Hope Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, HIGH HOPE CARE CENTER 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 5-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 High Hope Stick Around?

HIGH HOPE CARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 43%, 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 High Hope Ever Fined?

HIGH HOPE CARE CENTER 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 High Hope on Any Federal Watch List?

HIGH HOPE CARE 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.

HIGH HOPE CARE CENTER

475 HIGH HOPE ROAD, SULPHUR, LA 70663 | (337) 527-8140

A
Trust Grade (90/100)
5.0
CMS Rating
8
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • Licensed facility

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025