2319 East Main Street, New Iberia, LA 70560 · Iberia County · (337) 365-8226
114 certified beds, about 65 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2005
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 195618 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 10, 2026, inspectors cited 12 health deficiencies (the Louisiana average is 6.4, the national average 9.2).
None of its 52 health citations since April 2024 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.59 hours per resident per day, against 3.76 across Louisiana and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.13 of those hours.
71.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Louisiana average 47.6%).
CMS links it to Paramount Healthcare Consultants, an affiliated group of 14 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 52 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, policy review, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to implement and maintain an effective infection control and prevention program by failing to:1. Implement a system of surveillance that included pathogen data to properly identify possible communicable diseases or infections before they spread. 2. Ensure staff used personal protective equipment according to accepted standards of practice as evidenced by staff not wearing the appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) while providing high contact care for 2 (#27, #54) residents who were on enhanced barrier precautions.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident's food was palatable, prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, and served potentially hazardous food (dairy) in a safe manner as evidenced by: 1. S4Cook failing to prepare food(s) according to the recipe, 2. Resident #38 served spoiled milk on 06/08/2026, and 3. Resident #58 served spoiled milk on 06/08/2026 and 06/09/2026. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the 70 residents who consumed food from the facility's kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the provider failed to prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional food service standards by failing to ensure staff:1. Wore appropriate hair covering when entering the kitchen2. Label and date all refrigerated food opened; and3. Served potentially hazardous food (dairy) in a safe manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity by failing to ensure the room door was closed and privacy curtain was drawn while performing perineal care (peri-care) for 2 (Residents #27 and #54) of 2 residents investigated for dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the soft touch call light device was within reach for 1 (Resident #27) of 38 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident's rights to confidentiality of medical records for 1 (Resident #44) out of a sample of 38 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident's physician's orders for providing pudding with meals were followed for 1 (Resident #4) of 38 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADL) receive the necessary services to maintain grooming and oral hygiene. This is evidenced by the facility failing to ensure: Resident #27 was shaven and maintained good oral hygiene. Resident #54's adult brief and linen were clean.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, by failing to ensure a resident who complained of nausea and vomiting received medication ordered by the physician to treat these symptoms for 1 (Resident #57) of 38 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, and prevent new pressure ulcers from developing by failing to turn two dependent with pressure ulcers every two hours for 2 (Resident #27 and #54) of 2 residents investigated for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to obtain ordered medications from the pharmacy for 1 (Resident #73) of 5 residents observed during medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to appropriately store over the counter (OTC) medications in the locked medication cart.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure dietary support personnel had the appropriate competencies and skill sets to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service. The facility failed to ensure S6HSK, S7HSK, and S8FS were competent to effectively and sanitarily perform the functions of the facility's dishwasher. This deficient practice had the potential to affect any of the 74 residents who received meals from the facility's kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, interviews, the facility failed to ensure sufficient dietary support personnel were employed to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service. This deficient practice had the potential to affect any of the 74 residents who received meals from the facility's kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to distribute, store, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety by failing to ensure:1. The food service area remained in a sanitary condition during the meal prep process.2. The ice scoops were stored away properly to prevent or minimize the spread of foodborne illnesses.3. Residents cups were stored inverted or covered.4. Staff monitored equipment to ensure that it was functioning properly. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the 74 residents who were served food from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to be administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources effectively and efficiently to ensure the well-being of residents by failing to provide oversight of the kitchen's practices for safe food service. The deficient practice had the potential to affect the 74 residents who consumed meals prepared from the facility's kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure kitchen equipment was maintained in a safe operating condition by failing to ensure:A leak beneath the ice machine was reported to maintenance in a timely manner. Staff monitored equipment to ensure that it was functioning properly.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the residents' right to participate in the facility's residents group, Resident Council, as evidenced by administrative staff failing to consider and act upon voiced grievances during monthly Resident Council meetings for 3 of 3 residents (#2, #6 and #16) actively involved in the facility's Resident Council. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the 60 residents who resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain privacy and confidentiality of 4 Residents (#13, #23, #27, and #39) medical records. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all of the 60 residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents received respiratory care according to professional standards of practice, the physician's order, and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 3 (#11, #14, and #19) of 3 (#11, #14, and #19) residents investigated for respiratory care, as evidenced by failing to: 1. Ensure Resident #11's humidifier bottle was changed when it was empty, and Oxygen tubing changed weekly; 2. ensure Resident #19's oxygen nebulizer mask, nasal cannula, and suction cannula were stored in a bag when not used; and 3. date and label oxygen tubing and ensuring oxygen was delivered at the ordered rate for Resident #14.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Medication carts were locked when unattended for 1 (Med Cart A and Med Cart B) out of 2 (Med Cart A and Med Cart B) medication carts reviewed; 2. Medication carts were free of loose pills for 2 (Med Cart A and Med Cart B) out of 2 (Med Cart A and Med Cart B) medication carts reviewed; 3. Medication carts were free of expired medications for 2 (Med Cart A and Med Cart B) out of 2 (Med Cart A and Med Cart B) medication carts reviewed; and 4. One Ozempic Syringe (medication that helps lower blood sugar) was stored appropriately. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all of the 60 residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and record review, the facility failed to maintain the kitchen in accordance with professional standards for food service safety as evidenced by: 1. Failing to ensure food items were covered in the walk in cooler; 2. Failing to ensure expired food items were removed from the dry goods storage room; 3. Failing to ensure the dishwasher reached 120 degrees Fahrenheit during the wash cycle; and 4. Failing to ensure clean dishes were not stored in the dishwashing area. This deficient practice had the potential to effect the 62 residents that received nourishment from the kitchen:
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that resident or resident's RP (Responsible Party) were invited to, attended, or participated in quarterly care plan meetings for 1 (Resident #47) resident out of 28 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and maintenance log review, the facility failed to provide a homelike environment, by failing to address a concern regarding bed repairs for 1 (#11) of 4 (#11, #13, #27, and #260) residents investigated for environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflected the resident's status, for 1(#7) of 28 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident received services according to the person-centered plan of care for 1 (#14) of 28 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good grooming by failing to trim and clean a resident's fingernails for 1 (Resident #39) of 28 sampled residents. The deficient practice had the potential to affect a census of 60.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received enteral feedings as ordered by the physician for 1 (Resident #51) out of 28 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident receiving dialysis received services consistent with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 (#260) of 1 (#260) resident receiving dialysis out of a total sample size of 28 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure: 1. Resident #2 and Resident #3 were assessed for the risk of entrapment from side rails. 2. Informed consent was obtained from the resident or resident's representative prior to installation of side rails for Resident #2 and Resident #3. 3. Ongoing monitoring and supervision were provided for Resident #2's use of side rails. This deficient practice occurred for 2 (Resident #2, and Resident #3) of 3 (Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3) sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure all allegations of injuries of unknown source that resulted in serious bodily injury was reported immediately, or within 2 hours of the allegation to the state survey agency for 1 (#1) out of 2 (#1 and #2) residents sampled with incidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a person centered care plan for 1(Resident #2) out of 3 (Resident#1, Resident #2, and Resident #3) sampled residents by failing to ensure that the use of side rails was included in the Plan of Care for Resident #2.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices for 1 (#1) out of 3 (#1, #2, and #3) sampled residents by failing to ensure the EMAR (Electronic Medication Administration Record) was complete and/or accurately documented for Resident #1. On 11/25/2024, a review of the facility's policy titled, Charting and Documentation with a last revision date of 01/15/2024, read in part, Policy Statement: All services provided to the resident, progress toward the care plan goals, or any change in the resident's medical, physical, functional or psychosocial condition, shall be documented in the resident's medical record. The policy also indicated that the following information is to be documented in the resident medical record: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that nurse aides are able to demonstrate competency in skills necessary to care for residents' needs, as identified through observation of pleasure feedings for 1 (#3) of 4 (#1, #2, #3, R1) sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 (#1) of 3 (#1, #2, and #3) sampled residents was safe to perform self-administration of medication. The right to self-administer medications is the responsibility of the interdisciplinary team to assess and determine if this practice is clinically appropriate and safe.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interview, the facility failed to promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice about aspects of his or her life in the facility that were significant to the resident for 1 (#2) of 3 sampled residents. The facility failed to accommodate Resident #2's choice to refuse care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain privacy and confidentiality of residents' medical records for 1 (#R1) out of 4 sampled residents. The facility had a total census of 61 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's person centered care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment for 1(#1) of 3 (#1, #2, and #3) sampled residents as evidenced by Resident #1's care plan not reflecting the resident's wish to transfer to another facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure medication Carts were locked when unattended for 2 (Cart A, Cart B) of 3 (Cart A, Cart B, Cart C) medication carts observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and observations, the facility failed to ensure the residents call system was functioning for 1 (#1) out of 3 (#1, #2, #3) sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a resident's physician was consulted when there was a change in the plan of care for 1(#1) of 3 (#1, #2, and #3) sampled residents. The facility failed to notify Resident #1's physician that his smoking privileges were revoked, and that staff were administering a nicotine replacement that had not been ordered by a physician. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the 9 residents who smoked.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a resident with a qualifying mental disorder, was not admitted to the facility before a preadmission screening by the State Office of Behavioral Health (OBH) was completed or obtained for 1 (#1) of 3 (#1, #2, and #3) sampled residents investigated for a complaint.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, review of the facility's policy and procedure, and interviews, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan within 7 days of the completion of the required comprehensive assessment MDS (Minimum Data Set) for 5 (Resident #4, 12, 16, 21, and 31) out of 5 (Resident #4, 12, 16, 21, and 31). The final sample size was 31.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to properly store and label respiratory equipment for 2 (#9 and #16) out of 2 (#9 and #16) residents investigated for respiratory care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observations and record review the facility failed to ensure that pharmaceutical services provided to meet the needs of each resident were consistent with state and federal requirements and reflect current standards of practice as evidenced by: 1. Failing to ensure medication was not left at Resident #31's bedside; 2. Failing to ensure medications were not left unattended on top of the medication cart; 3. Failing to ensure controlled medication was not taped back in the blister pack; 4. Failing to ensure medications were stored separately from food and labeled with the resident's name.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a homelike environment for 1 (#30) out of 2(#17, #30) residents investigated for environment, out of a total sample of 31 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive plan of care for 2 (#13 and #17) out of 3 (#13, #15, #17) residents investigated for care planning out of a total sample of 31 residents, by failing to: 1. Address Resident #13 family's refusal for use of a proper positioning device. 2. Address Resident #17's limited range of motion.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident with pressure ulcers received the necessary treatment and services to promote healing as evidenced by the staff failing to assess and provide treatment for an identified pressure ulcer for 1 (#13) out of 31 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance to prevent falls for 1 (#42) out of 2 (#40, #42) sampled residents investigated for falls out of a total sample of 31 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that medications and pharmaceutical services were provided to meet the needs of 2 (#25, #31) out of a total sample of 31 residents, by failing to: 1. Ensure that Resident #25's Plavix (blood thinner) was re-ordered and administered; 2. Maintain a system to account for the usage and reconciliation of all controlled medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control and prevention program by failing to perform hand hygiene before preparing medications and after removing gloves after patient contact. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the 70 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the most recent survey results of the facility were posted in a place readily accessible to residents, family members, and legal representatives of residents.
7 fire safety citations on file: 5 on June 10, 2026, 2 on April 3, 2024.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Louisiana | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.59 | 3.76 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.13 | 0.31 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.25 | 3.21 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.47 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.00 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 71.2% | 47.6% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 41.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.49 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.74 on weekdays and 3.25 on weekends, 13% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 15.4% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.01 in April to June 2025 to 3.59 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.59 | 0.13 | 3.74 | 3.25 | 15.4% | 0 of 90 | 65 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.55 | 0.14 | 3.67 | 3.26 | 4.0% | 0 of 92 | 61 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.70 | 0.15 | 3.84 | 3.36 | 0.3% | 0 of 92 | 57 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.01 | 0.15 | 4.19 | 3.54 | 24.6% | 0 of 91 | 58 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Louisiana, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.64 | 0.26 | 3.86 | 3.10 | 3.6% | 0.9% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Louisiana, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $14.67 | $13.97 to $16.87 | 20,690 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $27.63 | $23.87 to $29.43 | 17,600 |
| Registered nurses | $38.57 | $33.19 to $45.00 | 48,970 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Louisiana | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.8 | 17.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.7 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.1 | 3.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.7 | 17.9 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.8 | 5.6 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 25.0 | 22.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.7 | 28.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 23.6 | 14.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.8 | 2.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.0 | 2.7 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Consolata Rehab and Wellness Center on the Teche's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it worse than the national rate (32.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
32.6% this home
Worse than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Louisiana: 16 better, 33 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 41 eligible stays.
12.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Louisiana: 0 better, 3 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 61 eligible stays.
7.3% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Louisiana: 1 better, 7 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 30 eligible stays.
70.0% this home
Median of homes: Louisiana50.0% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 20 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Louisiana1.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 32 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Louisiana2.8% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 32 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Louisiana100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 6 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: PARAMOUNT HEALTHCARE CONSULTANTS -NEW IBERIA LLC. CMS links this home to Paramount Healthcare Consultants, a group of 14 nursing homes averaging 2.4 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ajar Investments LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 21% | 07/01/2022 |
| Delta Health LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 25% | 07/01/2022 |
| Mginc LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 23% | 07/01/2022 |
| Phc Special LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 11% | 07/01/2022 |
| Tmgs Inv, LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 5% | 07/01/2022 |
| Bailey, Dottie | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 07/01/2022 | |
| Colligan, Lucas | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 07/01/2022 | |
| Davis, Angenette | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 07/01/2022 | |
| Futch, Denise | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 07/01/2022 | |
| Guidry, Guy | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 07/01/2022 | |
| Hall, Matthew | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 07/01/2022 | |
| Hopper, Kevin | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 07/01/2022 | |
| Jacola, Anthony | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 07/01/2022 | |
| Landry, Michael | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 07/01/2022 | |
| Mann, Claude | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 07/01/2022 | |
| Richardson, Adam | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 07/01/2022 | |
| Stewart, James | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 07/01/2022 | |
| Diocese of Lafayette | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 07/01/2022 | |
| Walters, Cindy | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/14/2025 | |
| Diocese of Lafayette | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/01/2022 | |
| Paramount Healthcare Consultants, LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/01/2022 | |
| Lapara, Nicholas | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2022 | |
| Walters, Cindy | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/14/2025 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Louisiana. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.