Thibodaux Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center
For profit - Corporation
78 Beds
NEXION HEALTH
Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
75/100
#54 of 264 in LA
Photo by Thibodaux Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center
Photo by Thibodaux Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center
Photo by Thibodaux Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center
1 / 10 photos
Last Inspection: March 2025
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Overview
Thibodaux Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center has received a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice among nursing homes. It ranks #54 out of 264 facilities in Louisiana, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 4 in Lafourche County, meaning only one local option is better. The facility is improving, reducing issues from 8 in 2024 to 7 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, with a 3 out of 5-star rating and a turnover rate of 40%, which is better than the state average. There have been no fines, which is a positive sign, and the center has more RN coverage than 96% of state facilities, ensuring better oversight of resident care. However, there are some concerns, including failures to maintain proper medication labeling and to provide adequate nursing care hours on certain days, as well as not following infection control procedures during urinary catheter care. Overall, while there are notable strengths, families should consider these issues when evaluating care options.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Louisiana
- #54/264
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 40% 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 ○ Average
- Each resident gets 34 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Louisiana. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
75/100
Top 20%
No red flags
8 → 7 violations
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2024: 8 issues
2025: 7 issues
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (40%)
8 points below Louisiana average of 48%
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Staff Turnover: 40%
Near Louisiana avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Chain: NEXION HEALTH
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record
Mar 2025
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
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 ensure a resident's Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostom...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed ensure a resident's Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube (a soft, plastic feeding tube that goes into the stomach used to provide nutrition when oral intake is inadequate) feeding was not administered while a resident was in a flat position for 1 (Resident #37) of 1 (Resident #37) resident investigated for PEG tube feedings.
Findings:
Review of Resident #37's electronic medical record revealed, in part, Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of dysphagia (difficulty swallowing).
Review of Resident #37's March 2025 physician orders revealed, in part, an order to administer Resident #37's Glucerna 1.2 (a form of liquid nutrition) at 70 milliliters/hour (mls/hr) through Resident #37's PEG tube. Further review revealed an order for staff to keep the head of Resident #37's bed elevated during PEG tube feedings.
Review of Resident #37's care plan revealed, in part, an intervention to keep the head of Resident #37's bed elevated during PEG tube feedings.
Observation on 03/23/2025 at 10:20AM revealed Resident #37 was administered Glucerna 1.2 at 70 mls/hr through Resident #37's PEG tube. Further observation revealed S8Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) repositioned Resident #37's head of bed to a flat position to provide incontinence care while Resident #37's PEG tube feeding was administered.
In an interview on 03/23/2025 at 10:23AM, S8CNA indicated she was unaware Resident #37's PEG tube feeding should have been paused prior to positioning Resident #37's head of bed to a flat position.
In an interview on 03/23/2025 at 10:24AM, S4Licensed Practical Nurse indicated Resident #37's PEG tube feeding should have been paused prior to positioning Resident #37's head of bed to a flat position.
In an interview on 03/24/2025 at 9:10AM, S2Director of Nursing confirmed Resident #37's tube feedings should have been paused prior to positioning Resident #37's head of bed to a flat position.
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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to store a resident's respiratory equipment in a sani...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to store a resident's respiratory equipment in a sanitary manner for 1 (Resident #54) of 3 (Resident #25, #35, #54) residents investigated for respiratory care.
Findings:
Review of Resident #54's electronic medical record revealed Resident #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of acute and chronic respiratory failure.
Review of Resident #54's March 2024 Physician's Orders revealed, in part, the following orders:
- continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) full mask with oxygen at 2 liters (L) per minute every night and as needed;
- ipratropium-albuterol solution (a breathing treatment) 0.5-2.5 (3) milligrams (mg)/3 milliliters (mls), inhale 3 mls orally every 4 hours, as needed, for shortness of breath or wheezing via nebulizer; and,
- oxygen at 2L per minute via nasal cannula continuously every shift related to chronic respiratory failure.
Observation on 03/24/2025 at 7:55AM revealed Resident #54's CPAP mask and nebulizer/breathing treatment mask were on the bedside table and not contained in a bag.
Observation on 03/24/2025 at 9:48AM revealed Resident #54's CPAP mask and nebulizer/breathing treatment mask were on the bedside table and not contained in a bag.
Observation on 03/24/2025 at 4:05PM revealed Resident #54's CPAP mask and nebulizer/breathing treatment mask were on the bedside table and not contained in a bag.
In an interview on 03/24/2025 at 4:23PM, S9Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) confirmed Resident #54's CPAP mask and nebulizer/breathing treatment masks were not contained in bags. S9LPN further indicated Resident #54's CPAP mask and nebulizer/breathing treatment mask should be contained in bags when not in use.
In an interview on 03/24/2025 at 5:00PM, S2Director of Nursing (DON) indicated CPAP masks and nebulizer/breathing treatment masks should be contained when not in use.
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 reviews, the facility failed to ensure:
1. Food was stored in a sanitary manner for 2 (Refrigerator a and Refrigerator c) of 3 (Refrigerator a, Refrigerat...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure:
1. Food was stored in a sanitary manner for 2 (Refrigerator a and Refrigerator c) of 3 (Refrigerator a, Refrigerator b, Refrigerator c) refrigerators and 1 (Freezer d) of 1 (Freezer d) freezers observed for food storage; and,
2. Ensure the facility's kitchen was maintained in a sanitary manner.
Findings:
1.
Observation of Refrigerator a on 03/23/2025 at 8:40AM revealed an opened and undated bag of browned lettuce, an opened and undated container or parmesan cheese, an onion with a black spot that was approximately ¼ of the size of the onion inside of a clear plastic tub with other onions.
Observation of Freezer d on 03/23/2025 at 8:40AM revealed a bag of white beans which was unlabeled with the contents of the bag.
Observation of Refrigerator c on 03/23/2025 at 8:45AM revealed shredded cheese was scattered across the bottom of Refrigerator c.
Observation of the kitchen with S3Dietary Manager on 03/24/2025 at 11:07AM revealed an opened and undated container of parmesan cheese and an onion with a black spot that was approximately ¼ of the size of the onion inside of a clear plastic tub with other onions which was in Refrigerator a. Further observation revealed a bag of white beans which was unlabeled with the contents of the bag in Freezer d.
In an interview on 03/24/2025 at 11:15AM, S3Dietary Manager indicated the bag of browned lettuce and the container of parmesan cheese should have been labeled with an opened date. S3Dietary Manager further indicated the onion with the black spot that was ¼ the size of the onion should not have been in the container and available for resident consumption. S3Dietary Manager further indicated the shredded cheese should not have been on the bottom of Refrigerator c. S3Dietary Manger further indicated the bag of white beans in Freezer d should have been labeled with the contents of the bag.
2.
Observation of the facility's kitchen on 03/23/2025 at 8:39AM revealed a rack of clean dishes contained various stacks of blue bowls. Further observation revealed 3 of the bowls on top of the various stacks had debris and a greasy film on them.
Observation of the facility's kitchen on 03/23/2025 at 8:44AM revealed a rack of clean dishes contained various stacks of dome covers (a cover that helps to keep a resident's food warm during transport) and various stacks of pellets (a metal plate that is placed under a resident's plate to help keep food warm during transport). Further observation revealed 4 of the pellets on top of the various stacks had dust and a greasy film on them and 5 of the dome covers had dust on them.
Observation of the kitchen with S3Dietary Manager on 03/24/2025 at 11:07AM revealed a rack of clean dishes contained various stacks of blue bowls. Further observation revealed 3 of the bowls on top of the various stacks had debris and a greasy film on them. Further observation revealed a rack of clean dishes contained various stacks of dome covers and various stacks of pellets. Further observation revealed 4 of the pellets on top of the various stacks had dust and a greasy film on them and 5 of the dome covers had dust on them. Further observation revealed a dried brown substance in a splash pattern located on the wall directly behind the facility's steam table.
In an interview on 03/24/2025 at 11:15AM, S3Dietary Manager indicated the above mentioned bowls, dome covers, and pellets should not have dust, debris, and/or a greasy film on them.
In an interview on 03/24/2025 at 1:20PM, S3Dietary Manager indicated the dried brown substance should not have been on the wall behind the steam table.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's medications was maintained in the original manufacturer's or pharmacy's label for 1 (Medication Cart e...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's medications was maintained in the original manufacturer's or pharmacy's label for 1 (Medication Cart e) of 3 (Medication Cart e, Medication Cart f, and Treatment Cart g) medication carts observed.
Findings:
Review of the facility's Medication Administration policy and procedure, dated 04/01/2019 and last reviewed 07/08/2024, revealed, in part, the individual administering the medications should check the label three times to verify the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time, and right method (route) of administration before administering the medications.
Observation on 03/24/2025 at 3:33PM revealed Medication Cart e contained a medication cup for Resident #1, Resident #17, Resident #28, Resident #32, Resident #30, Resident #45, Resident #55 and Resident #39 and two medication cups for Resident #14 and Resident #22. Further observation revealed the above mentioned medication cups contained each residents' medications, but were only labeled with the residents' names. Further observation revealed the second cup for Resident #14 and Resident #22 were also labeled with the time 9:00PM. Further observation revealed no evidence that any of the above mentioned cups were labeled with the names or doses of the medications they contained.
In an interview on 03/23/2025 at 3:34PM, S5Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) indicated she had pre-prepared the above mentioned residents' medications for later administration during her shift. S5LPN confirmed she should not have prepared the above mentioned residents' medications until she was ready to administer them.
In an interview on 03/23/2025 at 3:45PM, S2Director of Nursing confirmed medications should not be prepared and placed in medication cups until they were ready to be administered.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0836
(Tag F0836)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record reviews, the facility's administration failed to ensure the facility provided 2.35 hours of direct nursing care per resident for 4 (09/15/2024, 10/27/2024, 11/10/2024, 12...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record reviews, the facility's administration failed to ensure the facility provided 2.35 hours of direct nursing care per resident for 4 (09/15/2024, 10/27/2024, 11/10/2024, 12/08/2024) of 27 (09/15/2024, 10/05/2024, 10/06/2024, 10/12/2024, 10/13/2024, 10/19/2024, 10/20/2024, 10/26/2024, 10/27/2024, 11/02/2024, 11/03/2024, 11/09/2024, 11/10/2024, 11/16/2024, 11/17/2024, 11/23/2024, 11/24/2024, 11/30/2024, 12/01/2024, 12/07/2024, 12/08/2024, 12/14/2024, 12/15/2024, 12/21/2024, 12/22/2024, 12/28/2024, and 12/29/2024) weekend days reviewed for required staffing hours.
Findings:
Review of the facility's Administrator job description, dated March 2017, revealed, in part, the Administrator's responsibilities were to maintain and guide the implementation of the facility's policies and procedures in compliance with corporate, state, federal and other regulatory guidelines.
Review of the Louisiana Administrative Code Chapter 97-Nursing Facilities, last updated in 11/2023, revealed, in part, the nursing facility shall provide 2.35 hours of care per resident per day.
Review of the facility's staffing sheet dated 09/15/2024 revealed, in part, the facility's census was 72 residents.
Review of the facility's time sheets from 09/15/2024 revealed, in part, the total number of nurse staffing hours provided by the facility's nursing staff was 150.18 hours, which was 19.02 hours less than the required 169.2 hours.
Review of the facility's Nursing/Ancillary Personnel Staffing Pattern Reporting Forms, dated 10/02/2024 through 12/29/2024, signed as complete and accurate by S1Administrator on 03/24/2025 revealed, in part, the following weekend days:
On 10/27/2024 the facility was required to provide 171.55 hours of direct care based on their facility census of 73 residents. Further review revealed the facility provided 167.73 hours, which was 3.82 hours less than the required 171.55 hours.
On 11/10/2024 the facility was required to provide 178.60 hours of direct care based on their facility census of 76 residents. Further review revealed the facility provided 177.63 hours, which was 0.97 hours less than the required 178.60 hours.
On 12/08/2024 the facility was required to provide 180.95 hours of direct care based on their facility census of 77 residents. Further review revealed the facility provided 177.26 hours, which was 3.69 hours less than the required 180.95 hours.
In an interview on 03/24/2025 at 3:07PM, S1Administrator indicated the facility did not provide 2.35 hours of direct nursing care per resident on 09/15/2024, 10/27/2024, 11/10/2024, and 12/08/2024 as required.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were mai...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were maintained while emptying a urinary catheter bag for 1 (Resident #54) of 1 (Resident #54) sampled residents investigated for urinary catheter care.
Findings:
Review of the facility's Enhanced Barrier Precautions policy and procedure, dated 04/01/2024 and revised on 03/19/2025, revealed EBP referred to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employ targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities. Further review revealed EBP was used in conjunction with standard precautions and expanded the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to don (put on) a gown and gloves during high-contact resident care activities. Further review revealed, in part, EBP was indicated for residents with indwelling medical devices which included, in part, urinary catheters.
Review of Resident #54's medical record revealed Resident #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of diabetes mellitus type 2, hypertension, gout, acute cystitis without hematuria, obstructive and reflux uropathy (a blockage in the urinary tract), and urinary retention.
Review of Resident #54's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/16/2024 revealed, in part, Resident #54 had an indwelling catheter.
Observation on 03/25/2025 at 2:00PM revealed Resident #54 had a sign posted on his bedroom door for Enhanced Barrier Precautions.
Observation on 03/25/2025 at 2:02PM revealed S7Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) did not put on a gown when she entered Resident #54's room and emptied Resident #54's urinary catheter bag.
In an interview on 03/25/2025 at 2:08PM, S7CNA confirmed she did not put on a gown before she entered Resident #54's room and emptied Resident #54's urinary catheter bag. S7CNA further indicated she should have put on a gown.
In an interview on 03/25/2025 at 2:10PM, S6Assistant Director of Nursing confirmed S7CNA should have put on a gown before she entered Resident #54's room to empty Resident #54's urinary catheter bag.
Jan 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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to implement physician ordered interventions to prevent future falls for 2 (Resident #2 and Resident #3) of 3 (Resident #1, R...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to implement physician ordered interventions to prevent future falls for 2 (Resident #2 and Resident #3) of 3 (Resident #1, Resident #2 and Resident #3) sampled residents reviewed for accidents.
Findings:
Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Resident Incident and Visitor Accident Report revised on 07/23/2018 revealed, in part, the Director Of Nursing (DON) or designee completes the investigation and comes to a reasonable conclusion regarding causative factors surrounding the incident and the actions necessary to prevent further incidents/accidents.
Resident #2
Review of Resident #2's fall scale evaluation dated 12/03/2024 revealed, in part, a score of 55. A score of 55 indicated Resident #2 was at a high risk for falls.
Review of Resident #2's January 2025 Physician's Orders revealed, in part, on 09/13/2023 an order was received for a pommel cushion (A pommel cushion is a wheelchair cushion with a raised center section, or pommel, that helps keep the user's legs apart and supported) placed to resident's wheelchair to prevent thrusting, improve posture while sitting up in wheelchair, and to promote safety.
Review of Resident #2's Care Plan initiated on 09/19/2024 revealed, in part, Resident #2 was at risk for falls related to a right leg prosthesis, muscle weakness, lack of coordination, and impulsiveness status post a cerebrovascular accident (stroke) with a documented intervention, in part, to follow the facility's fall protocol.
Observation on 01/14/2025 at 10:10 a.m. revealed Resident #2's wheelchair did not have a pommel cushion.
Observation on 01/14/2025 at 11:40 a.m. revealed Resident #2's wheelchair did not have a pommel cushion.
Observation on 01/14/2025 at 1:15pm revealed Resident #2's wheelchair did not have a pommel cushion.
In an interview on 01/14/2025 at 2:00 p.m., S3Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) indicated Resident #2 did not have a wheelchair cushion with a raised center section.
In an interview on 01/14/2025 at 2:07 p.m., S2Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) confirmed Resident #2 had a current order for a pommel cushion.
On 01/14/2025 at 2:18 p.m., S4Physical Therapist observed Resident #2's wheelchair and indicated Resident #2's cushion was not a pommel cushion.
In an interview on 01/14/2025 at 2:37 p.m., S1DON confirmed Resident #2 had a current physician's order for a pommel cushion. S1DON further indicated the pommel cushion was ordered as an intervention after a fall in an attempt to prevent further falls, and Resident #2 should have had a pommel cushion in his wheelchair.
Resident #3
Review of Resident #3's fall scale evaluation dated 12/06/2024 revealed, in part, a score of 65. A score of 65 indicated Resident #3 was at a high risk for falls.
Review of Resident #3's January 2025 Physician's Orders revealed, in part, on 12/10/2024 an order was received for a landing pad to be placed on the right side of Resident #3's recliner for safety.
Review of Resident #3's Care Plan initiated on 12/10/2024 revealed, in part, Resident #3 was at risk for falls related to muscle weakness and lack of coordination with a documented intervention, in part, to follow the facility's fall protocol.
Observation on 01/14/2025 at 10:42 a.m. revealed Resident #3's recliner did not have a landing pad placed on the right side of her recliner.
Observation on 01/14/2025 at 4:05 p.m. revealed Resident #3's recliner did not have a landing pad placed on the right side of her recliner.
Observation on 01/15/2025 at 8:30 a.m. revealed Resident #3's recliner did not have a landing pad placed on the right side of her recliner.
In an interview on 01/15/2025 at 9:48 a.m., S5CNA indicated she was Resident #3's CNA for the current shift. Through visual observation, S5CNA confirmed Resident #3's recliner did not have a landing pad placed on the right side.
In an interview on 01/15/2025 at 10:35 a.m., S2LPN confirmed Resident #3 had a current order for a landing pad to the right side of her recliner.
In an interview on 01/15/2025 at 10:47 a.m., S1DON confirmed Resident #3 had a fall on 12/06/2024 and the intervention was to put a landing pad to the right side of the Resident #3's recliner. S1DON further indicated the nursing staff were responsible to ensure the landing pad was present in the room as ordered.
Sept 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
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure to ensure staff maintained fluids within a resident's reach for a resident identified as being at risk for dehydrat...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure to ensure staff maintained fluids within a resident's reach for a resident identified as being at risk for dehydration.
This deficient practice was identified for 1 (Resident #2) of 3 (Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3) sampled residents reviewed for hydration.
Findings:
Review of the facility's Hydration Management policy and procedure dated January 2023 revealed, in part, residents identified with potential/actual dehydration would be evaluated for contributing risk factors/conditions. Further review revealed risk factors for dehydration may include diarrhea/vomiting and a plan of care for the resident would be developed to ensure provisions of adequate fluid intake. Further review revealed water pitchers would be placed at a resident's bedside unless otherwise indicated.
Review of Resident #2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/06/2024 revealed, in part, Resident #2 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed Resident #2 had a diagnosis of dementia and malnutrition, was dependent on staff for transfers and mobility, and required supervision with setup assistance from staff for eating.
Review of Resident #2's care plan with a revision date of 06/13/2024 revealed, in part, Resident #2 was identified as being at risk for dehydration or fluid deficit related to diarrhea. Further review revealed Resident #2 had interventions which included water was to be kept at bedside, and staff to encourage resident to drink fluids.
Observation on 09/08/2024 at 8:32 a.m. revealed Resident #2 was in bed and her water pitcher was out of reach and across the room sitting on top of a large dresser. Further observation revealed Resident #2 had no water/fluids within reach at her bedside.
In an interview on 09/08/2024 at 8:32 a.m., Resident #2 was unable to state if she was thirsty or how long it had been since she was offered fluids.
Observation on 09/08/2024 at 10:16 a.m. revealed Resident #2 was in bed and her water pitcher was out of reach and across the room sitting on top of a large dresser. Further observation revealed Resident #2 had no water/fluids at her bedside.
Observation on 09/08/2024 at 12:32 p.m. revealed Resident #2 was in bed and her water pitcher was out of reach and across the room on top of a large dresser. Further observation revealed Resident #2 had no water/fluids at her bedside.
In an interview on 09/08/2024 at 12:55 p.m., S2Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) indicated Resident #2 was able to eat and drink on her own after she was set up by staff.
Observation on 09/08/2024 at 1:20 p.m. revealed Resident #2 was sitting upright in her bed with her lunch tray in front of her. Further observation revealed Resident #2 picked up a cup of red fluids and drank from the cup independently.
Observations on 09/08/2024 of Hall D, where Resident #2 resided and was confirmed after facility staff confirmed with the review of surveillance camera footage, revealed no evidence ice and/or water was passed on the 6:00 am to 2:00 pm shift.
In an interview on 09/09/2024 at 11:03 a.m., S1Director of Nursing (DON) indicated the CNAs were responsible to pass water and/or ice down the halls at least once a shift.
In an interview on 09/09/2024 at 11:55 a.m., S1DON confirmed Resident #2 had a care plan for dehydration with an intervention which included to keep water at bedside. S1DON indicated the facility's camera footage for Hall D on 09/08/2024 for the 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. shift was reviewed, and the facility had no evidence the staff passed ice/water on Hall D at any time during the shift, and should have.
Mar 2024
7 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
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's code status was completed consistent with the resident's wishes for 1 (Resident #48) of 17 (Resident #2, Resident #8, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's code status was completed consistent with the resident's wishes for 1 (Resident #48) of 17 (Resident #2, Resident #8, Resident #10, Resident #11, Resident #14, Resident #16, Resident #20, Resident #22, Resident #27, Resident #29, Resident #30, Resident #32, Resident #43, Resident #46, Resident #48, Resident #58, and Resident #59) sampled residents reviewed for advanced directives in the initial pool.
Findings:
Review of Resident #48's Louisiana Physician Orders For Scope of Treatment (LaPOST) dated 02/29/2024 indicated Resident #48's request was for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). Further review revealed Resident #48's LaPOST was not signed by a physician.
In an interview on 03/18/2024 at 12:32 p.m., S2Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) indicated Resident #48's LaPOST should have been signed by the physician.
In an interview 03/19/2024 at 11:42 a.m., S7Medical Records indicated she was responsible for getting the LaPOSTs signed by the doctor. S7Medical Records indicated Resident #48's LaPOST slipped through the cracks, and was not signed by a physician.
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 observation and interviews, the facility failed to have a means to dispose of garbage without touching the garbage receptacle for 1 of 2 hand wash sinks in the kitchen.
Findings:
Observatio...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to have a means to dispose of garbage without touching the garbage receptacle for 1 of 2 hand wash sinks in the kitchen.
Findings:
Observation on 03/18/2024 at 9:10 a.m. during the brief kitchen tour, S5Dietary Manager identified two sinks as hand wash sinks. Observation of the hand wash sink, located in the food preparation area, revealed a garbage receptacle with a lid which had to be lifted manually in order to throw something away.
Observation on 03/19/2024 at 11:31 a.m. revealed the hand wash sink, located in the food preparation area, had a garbage receptacle with a lid which had to be lifted manually in order to throw something away.
In an interview on 03/19/2024 at 11:31 a.m., S13Dieatary Aide identified the sink located in the food preparation area as the sink dietary staff used to wash their hands. S13Dietary Aide indicated she disposed of soiled paper towels in the garbage receptacle and indicated she had to remove the lid of the garbage receptacle with her hands.
In an interview on 03/19/2024 at 11:35 a.m., S5Dietary Manager indicated the garbage receptacle should not have a lid which needed to be lifted manually in order to throw something away.
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.
Findings:
Observation on 03/18/2024 at 9:24 a.m. revealed 2 dumpsters were located behind the facili...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Findings:
Observation on 03/18/2024 at 9:24 a.m. revealed 2 dumpsters were located behind the facility. Observation revealed a grease drain was located to the left side of one of the dumpsters. The grease drain had a buildup of a black substance on the drain, and a buildup of the black substance on the ground between the dumpster and the grease drain. Observation revealed the area immediately behind the dumpster, located closest to the facility, had a buildup of used gloves, cardboard, paper plates, and a thick buildup of a black substance on the ground.
In an interview on 03/18/2024 at 9:24 a.m., S5Dietary Manager confirmed the above documented findings and indicated S8Maintenance was responsible for maintaining the dumpster area.
In an interview on 03/18/24 at 9:32 a.m., S8Maintenance confirmed the above documented findings, and indicated it was his responsibility to maintain the area.
In an interview on 03/19/2024 at 8:20 a.m., S1Administrator indicated S8Maintenance was responsible for the maintenance of the area surrounding the dumpsters. S1Administrator reviewed pictures of the above documented areas and indicated the area was unsanitary and should not have litter on the ground surrounding the dumpsters.
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 and interview the facility failed to ensure a staff member wore gloves when administering an insulin injection (a medication used to treat diabetes) to 1 (Resident #365) of 1(Resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure a staff member wore gloves when administering an insulin injection (a medication used to treat diabetes) to 1 (Resident #365) of 1(Resident #365) residents observed receiving insulin during the medication administration task.
Findings:
An observation on 03/19/2024 at 12:19 p.m. revealed S12Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) administered an insulin injection without putting on gloves.
In an interview on 03/19/2024 at 12:19 p.m., S12LPN confirmed she did not have gloves on when she administered Resident #365's insulin injection and should have worn gloves when she administered Resident #365's insulin injection.
In an interview on 03/20/2024 at 1:40 p.m., S4Infection Preventionist confirmed gloves should have been worn when an injection was administered.
In an interview on 03/20/2024 at 1:45 p.m., S3Corportate Nurse confirmed gloves should have been worn when a nurse administered a medication via an injection.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record reviews, interviews, and observations, the facility failed to ensure privacy was maintained during showers for 4 (Resident #8, Resident #28, Resident #30, and Resident #215) of 4 sampl...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews, interviews, and observations, the facility failed to ensure privacy was maintained during showers for 4 (Resident #8, Resident #28, Resident #30, and Resident #215) of 4 sampled residents investigated for privacy.
Findings:
Resident #8
Review of Resident #8's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/01/2024 revealed, in part, a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15. A score of 15 indicated Resident #8 was cognitively intact.
In an interview on 03/18/2024 at 11:22 a.m., Resident #8 indicated she did not have privacy during showers and she was embarrassed when other people saw her naked.
In an interview on 03/19/2024 at 10:18 a.m., S11Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) indicated 2 residents use shower room A at the same time. S11CNA indicated when there were 2 residents in the shower room it was very likely they would see each other naked.
Observation of shower room A on 03/19/2024 at 3:41 p.m. revealed the ceiling between the shower and the open area of the shower room had tracks for a privacy curtain, and there was no privacy curtain suspended from the tracks.
In an interview on 03/19/2024 at 3:41 p.m., S8Maintenance confirmed shower room A did not have a privacy curtain for the shower.
Resident #28
Review of Resident #28's MDS with ARD of 02/14/2024 revealed, in part, a BIMS score of 13. A score of 13 indicated the resident was cognitively intact.
Observation on 03/20/2024 at 10:08 a.m. revealed Resident #28 exited shower room A.
In an interview on 03/20/2024 at 10:10 a.m., Resident #28 indicated she was in shower room A at the same time as Resident #8. Resident #28 further indicated she observed Resident #8 without clothes.
Resident #30
Review of Resident #30's MDS with an ARD of 03/06/2024 revealed, in part, a BIMS score of 15. A score of 15 indicated Resident #30 was cognitively intact. Further review revealed Resident #30 was totally dependent on others for showering and bathing.
In an interview on 03/20/2024 at 9:40 a.m., Resident #30 indicated the only privacy curtain in the shower room was around the toilet and the whirlpool. Resident #30 further explained when she showers the Certified Nursing Assistant would place her on a shower chair and take off her clothing and she would sit exposed while waiting for her turn in the shower stall. Resident #30 further added the Certified Nursing Assistant would take the other resident out the shower and then place her in the shower and they would be able to see each other naked at this time. Resident #30 further indicated if the door to the shower room would open, anyone who walked down the hall could see into the shower room.
Resident #215
Review of Resident #215's MDS with an ARD of 03/13/2024 revealed a BIMS score of 15. A score of 15 indicated Resident #215 was cognitively intact.
Observation on 03/20/2024 at 10:21 a.m. revealed Resident #215 sat on a shower chair unclothed in shower room A. Observation further revealed S11CNA transported Resident #8 out of the shower in the shower chair unclothed and Resident #215 and Resident #8 were able to see each other.
In an interview on 03/20/2024 at 3:32 p.m., Resident #215 indicated she was self-conscious about her appearance. Resident #215 further indicated when she showered she was able to see other residents unclothed and they were able to see her.
In an interview on 03/21/2024 at 10:01 a.m., S11CNA confirmed Resident #215 and Resident #8 were able to see each other unclothed in the shower room. S11CNA further indicated residents should not see each other unclothed.
In an interview on 03/20/2024 at 2:41 p.m., S2Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) indicated 2 residents use the shower room at the same time. S2ADON confirmed shower room A did not have a privacy curtain for the shower. S2ADON indicated privacy should be maintained at all times when a resident was in the shower room.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's meal intake and/or nutritional supplement intake was accurately documented in Resident #29's Electronic Medical Record ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's meal intake and/or nutritional supplement intake was accurately documented in Resident #29's Electronic Medical Record for 1 (Resident #29) of 1 (Resident #29) sampled residents reviewed for nutrition.
Findings:
Review of Resident #29's March 2024's Physician's Orders revealed, in part, an order dated 12/01/2023 to administer a Magic Cup (a frozen nutritional supplement) two times a day, and an order dated 10/12/2023 to administer 6 ounces (oz) of Medpass Sugar Free (SF) (a supplemental nutritional drink) supplement four times a day.
Review of Resident #29's March 2024 eMAR revealed, in part, Resident #29's Medpass SF supplement was to be administered to Resident #29 four times a day at 7:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m., 4:00 p.m., and 7:00 p.m. Further review revealed, the nurse was to indicate the amount the Medpass SF supplement Resident #29 drank with a notation of 1 for 25%, 2 for 50%, 3 for 75%, 4 for 100%, and R for refused. Further review revealed a notation of 0 for indicated for the administration of Resident #29's Medpass SF supplement at 7:00 a.m. on 03/17/2024, 03/18/2024, 03/19/2024, 03/20/2024, at 11:00 a.m. on 03/17/2024, 03/18/2024, 03/19/2024, 03/20/2024, at 4:00 p.m. on 03/17/2024, 03/18/2024, 03/19/2024, 03/20/2024, and at 7:00 p.m. on 03/17/2024, 03/18/2024, 03/19/2024, and 03/20/2024. Further review revealed Resident #29's Magic Cup supplement was to be administered to Resident #29 in the morning and the evening. Further review revealed the nurse was to indicate the amount of the Magic Cup supplement Resident #29 ate with a notation of 1 for 25%, 2 for 50%, 3 for 75%, 4 for 100%, and R for refused. Further review revealed a notation of 0 was indicated for the administration of Resident #29's Magic Cup supplement in the morning on 03/15/2024, 03/16/2024, 03/17/2024, and 03/20/2024, and in the evening on 03/15/2024, 03/16/2024, 03/17/2024, 03/18/2024, 03/19/20 and 03/20/2024.
Review of Resident #29's February 2024 eMAR revealed, in part, Resident #29's Medpass SF supplement was to be administered to Resident #29 four times a day at 7:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m., 4:00 p.m., and 7:00 p.m. Further review the nurse was to indicate the amount of the Medpass SF supplement Resident #29 drank with a notation of 1 for 25%, 2 for 50%, 3 for 75%, 4 for 100%, and R for refused. Further review revealed a notation of 0 for indicated for the administration of Resident #29's Medpass SF supplement at 7:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m., 4:00 p.m., and 7:00 p.m. on 02/11/2024, 02/12/2024, 02/13/2024, 02/14/2024, 02/15/2024, 02/16/2024, 02/17/2024, 02/18/2024, and 02/19/2024.
Review of Resident #29's Meal intake log from 02/21/2024 to 03/21/2024 revealed, in part. Resident #29's meal intake was not documented for breakfast and/or lunch on 02/24/2024, 02/25/2024, 03/09/2024, 03/12/2024, 03/17/2024, and 03/18/2024.
In an interview on 03/20/2024 at 1:03 p.m., S10Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) indicated a resident's meal intake was to be documented after breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
In an interview on 03/21/2024 at 9:45 a.m., S9CNA indicated a resident's meal intake should be documented after every meal.
In an interview on 03/21/2024 at 10:12 a.m., S12Licensed Practical Nurse indicated she had been documenting the consumption of Resident #29's Medpass SF supplement and Magic Cup supplement incorrectly in Resident #29's eMAR.
In an interview on 03/21/2024 at 12:08 p.m., S2Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) confirmed Resident #29's eMAR had inaccurate documentation to indicate the consumption of Resident #29's Medpass SF supplement and Magic Cup supplement. S2ADON further stated the nurse's should have been documenting a 1,2,3,4, or R to indicate the consumption of Resident #29's Medpass SF supplement and Magic Cup supplement. S2ADON further confirmed there was missing documentation of Resident #29's meal intake on the above mentioned dates and there should not have been.
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing information was was posted daily with the facility's census, the number of each type of nursing staff, and the actual...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing information was was posted daily with the facility's census, the number of each type of nursing staff, and the actual hours to be worked by the nursing staff per shift.
Findings:
Review of the facility's Staff Posting Sheet dated 03/20/2024 revealed, in part, the daily staffing sheets did not include the facility's census number, nursing staff titles, and/or the actual hours provided as required.
Review of the facility's Staff Posting Sheet dated 03/21/2024 revealed, in part, the daily staffing sheets did not include the facility's census number, nursing staff titles, and/or the actual hours provided as required.
In an interview on 03/21/2024 at 1:09 p.m., S1Administrator stated the facility did not have the required census number, number of each staff by title, and hours to be worked by the nursing staff recorded on the Staff Posting Sheet.
Nov 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
Employment Screening
(Tag F0606)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an individual with criminal charges that restrict employment was not employed by the facility for 1 (S4Certified Nursing Assistant (...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an individual with criminal charges that restrict employment was not employed by the facility for 1 (S4Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)) of 3 (S4CNA, S5CNA, S6CNA) personnel records reviewed.
Findings:
Review of the facility's Background Checks Prohibition Policy revealed, in part, the facility must conduct background checks on all prospective employees in order to verify identity, qualifications, ability, and character to work in the long-term care environment.
Review of S4CNA's personnel record revealed, in part, S4CNA was hired on 05/11/2023 as a certified nursing assistant.
Review of S4CNA's Criminal History Report completed on 05/05/2023 revealed, in part, S4CNA was arrested on 11/09/2002 for R.S. 14:67.1003, which was the left of goods under 100. Further review revealed an arrest date of 06/16/2003 for R.S. 14:67.10, which was a theft of goods. Review revealed no final disposition (an outcome of the criminal case) and the facility did not present any evidence of a final disposition of either theft charge.
In an interview on 11/08/2023 at 11:15 a.m., S3Human Resources stated S4CNA's criminal history report revealed two theft charges, and the facility did not obtain dispositions for either charge. S3Human Resources confirmed the two theft charges without dispositions would restrict S4CNA from employment at the facility.
In an interview on 11/08/2023 at 11:41 a.m., S1Administrator stated he was not aware S4CNA had criminal charges of theft without final dispositions. S1Administrator confirmed S4CNA's criminal charges required dispositions.
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
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 a thorough investigation was conducted for an abuse allegati...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation was conducted for an abuse allegation reported for 1 (Resident #2) of 3 (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3) sampled residents reviewed for abuse.
Findings:
Review of the facility's Policies and Procedures titled Abuse Prevention and Prohibition with a revision date of 10/2022 revealed, in part, the facility will investigate and obtain interviews and/or written statements from individuals, (residents, visitors or staff), who may have firsthand knowledge of the incident. Further review revealed all material/documentation of pertinent data to the investigation will be collected, maintained, and safeguarded in the Administrator/DON's office by the facility.
Review of Resident #2's medical record revealed, in part, Resident #2 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of hemiplegia (muscle weakness) affecting his left side. Further review revealed Resident #2 had moderately impaired cognition and required staff assistance with transfers and bed mobility.
Review of the facility's Statewide Incident Management System report dated 06/26/2023 revealed, in part, Resident #2 discharged to the hospital on [DATE]. Further review revealed Resident #2's spouse submitted a customer satisfaction survey to the facility which alleged Resident #2 was pushed into the bed and neglected by facility staff. Further review revealed Resident #2's spouse did not indicate who pushed Resident #2 or when it occurred. Further review of the SIMS report revealed, in part, no evidence the facility completed interviews with staff or residents to investigate the allegation of abuse.
Review of Resident #2's Customer Satisfaction Survey revealed, in part, Resident #2's spouse alleged Resident #2 was pushed in the bed three or four times by unknown facility staff member. Further review revealed allegations that the unknown staff member would scream at Resident #2.
In an interview on 11/07/2023 at 2:17 p.m., S2DON stated she did not investigate further because Resident #2's customer satisfaction survey completed by his spouse did not accuse any specific staff member to investigate nor did it indicate a time frame the alleged pushing occurred. S2DON confirmed the facility had no evidence and the facility did not present any evidence a thorough investigation was completed after an allegation of abuse was reported.
Oct 2023
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
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 reviews and interviews, the facility failed to immediately notify the physician when a residents x-ray result re...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to immediately notify the physician when a residents x-ray result revealed a fractured ankle for 1 (Resident #3) of 3 (Resident #1, #2, and #3) sampled residents.
Findings:
Review of Resident #3's nurses notes dated 09/23/2023 at 12:37 p.m. revealed Resident #3 was observed with bruises to the left ankle and swelling to the left foot. S2Licensed Practical Nurse(LPN) contacted Resident #3's physician and received an order for an in-house x-ray.
Review of Resident #3's x-ray resulted dated 09/23/2023 revealed an acute fracture of the medial and lateral malleolus (bone on the side of the ankle). Further review revealed the x-ray results were electronically signed by the radiologist on 09/23/2023 at 4:29 p.m. Resident #3's electronic record had a copy of the x-ray with a date stamp of 09/23/2023 at 5:30 p.m.
Review of Resident #3's Nurses notes dated 09/24/2023 at 6:58 a.m. revealed an acute fracture of the medial and lateral malleolus was identified on the x-ray from 09/23/2023. Further review revealed Resident #3's Nurse Practitioner was contacted and an order was received to send Resident #3 to the emergency room.
In an interview on 10/19/2023 at 3:11 p.m., S2LPN stated the mobile x-ray company came to the facility on [DATE] and took an x-ray of Resident #3's ankle; however, she did not see the faxed results before she left the faciity on [DATE]. S2LPN further stated when she started her shift on 09/23/2023 Resident #3's x-ray results were on the fax machine and that was when she notified Resident #3's physician.
In an interview on 10/19/2023 at 12:36 p.m., S1DON stated incoming faxes were received at the nurses' station fax machine; however, no one was assigned the specific responsibility to check the fax machine. S1DON confirmed the date and time stamp on Resident #3's x-ray results from 09/23/2023 were correct. S1DON further confirmed Resident #3's physician was not notified of the fracture until 09/24/2023 at 6:58 a.m. and should have been notified when the x-ray results were received.
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
- • 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.
- • 40% turnover. Below Louisiana's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
- • 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.
✓ Report will be sent to your email
About This Facility
What is Thibodaux Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Thibodaux Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center 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 Thibodaux Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Staffed?
CMS rates Thibodaux Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 40%, compared to the Louisiana average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Thibodaux Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at Thibodaux Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center during 2023 to 2025. These included: 17 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Thibodaux Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center?
Thibodaux Healthcare and Rehabilitation 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 NEXION HEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 78 certified beds and approximately 71 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in THIBODAUX, Louisiana.
How Does Thibodaux Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other Louisiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Louisiana, Thibodaux Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.4, staff turnover (40%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Thibodaux Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center?
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 Thibodaux Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Thibodaux Healthcare and Rehabilitation 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 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 Thibodaux Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?
Thibodaux Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center has a staff turnover rate of 40%, 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 Thibodaux Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?
Thibodaux Healthcare and Rehabilitation 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 Thibodaux Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?
Thibodaux Healthcare and Rehabilitation 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.