240 Arceneaux Road, Carencro, LA 70520 · Lafayette County · (337) 896-9227
190 certified beds, about 75 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2003
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 195578 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on June 3, 2026, inspectors cited 9 health deficiencies (the Louisiana average is 6.4, the national average 9.2).
None of its 57 health citations since January 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 3.92 hours per resident per day, against 3.76 across Louisiana and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.21 of those hours.
78.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Louisiana average 47.6%).
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 57 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to distribute, store, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety by failing to ensure staff: 1 Labeled food items in the freezer with an open date;2. wore a beard restraint while preparing food items; 3. used hygienic practices while checking food temperatures on the serving line; and4. maintained a daily temperature log for the cooler and freezer. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the 72 residents who consumed food from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a resident admitted to a facility without pressure ulcers received care to prevent the development of pressure ulcers unless the individual's clinical condition demonstrates that they were unavoidable for 1 (#54) out 2 (#7, #54) residents investigated for pressure ulcers out of a total sample of 33 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who smoked was free from potential accidents and hazards by staff failing to hold resident's lit cigarette for 1 (#15) out of 1 (#15) resident investigated for unsafe smoking.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to address the needs of a resident experiencing impaired nutrition, by failing to implement physician orders and registered dietician recommendations for 1 (Resident #25) out of 7 residents investigated for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident was receiving continuous oxygen at the ordered flow rate for 1 (#49) out of 33 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure ongoing assessment and monitoring of the resident's dialysis access sites consistent with accepted professional standards for 1 (#3) out of 1 (#3) resident investigated for dialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medical records were accurately documented and maintained in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 (Resident #2) out of 33 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to implement EBP (Enhanced Barrier Precautions) for a resident with an indwelling medical device for 1 (#3) of 33 residents sampled.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen equipment was maintained in safe operating condition as evidenced by a leaking faucet on the three-compartment sink and exposed electrical wires on the mixer.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the nurse maintained infection control practices while administering wound care treatments for 1 resident (#2) out of 2 resident's reviewed for wound care in a sample of 3 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, and interviews the facility failed to ensure the resident's care plan and physician's orders were followed for 1 (#1) of 3 sampled residents as evidenced by failing to ensure Resident #1 wore heel lift boots while in bed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure licensed agency nurses had specific competencies and skills sets necessary to appropriately administer wound care to 1 resident (#2) out of 2 resident's reviewed for wound care in a sample of 3 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident's physician and responsible party were immediately notified when the resident was injured for 1 (Resident #2) of 10 (#1-#9 and #R1) sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to file a grievance for 1 (Resident #2) out of 10 (#1-#9 and #R1) sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure staff provide care and services that meet professional standards of quality as evidenced by failing to perform chest compressions immediately to a resident requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for 1 (#5) resident out of 10 (#1-#9 and #R1) sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure staff maintained current CPR certification for 1 (S3LPN-Licensed Practical Nurse) of 3 (S3LPN, S5LPN and S6CNA-Certified Nursing Assistant) personnel records reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the provider failed to implement the plan of care by not following physician orders to obtain laboratory testing as ordered for 1 (#2) out of 3 (#1, #2, #3) sampled residents. Review of Resident #2's medical record revealed his most recent readmission to the facility was on 02/04/2025 with diagnoses which included: essential hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and hyperlipidemia. Review of Resident #2's order summary report revealed laboratory orders dated 02/25/2025 for the following: Lipid panel q (every) 6 months (June/December); and PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) and urine for microalbumin yearly (June). Further review of Resident #2's medical record failed to reveal evidence a Lipid panel, PSA and urine for microalbumin were obtained during the month of June. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents that were unable to carry out activities of daily living received personal hygiene (incontinent care) per their care plan for 1 (#1) out of 3 (#1-#3) sampled residents. Review of the resident's electronic clinical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebrovascular disease affecting left non-dominant side, hypertension, and copd (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Review of the resident's annual MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 06/11/2025 revealed the resident's BIMS (Brief Interview Mental Status) score was 13 for being cognitively intact. Further review of the annual MDS revealed the resident had limited ROM (Range of Motion) on one side; used a wheelchair for mobility device; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident was receiving continuous oxygen as ordered for 1 (#1) out of 3 (#1-#3) sampled residents. Review of the resident's electronic clinical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebrovascular disease affecting left non-dominant side, hypertension, and copd (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Review of the resident's annual MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 06/11/2025 revealed the resident's BIMS (Brief Interview Mental Status) score was 13 for being cognitively intact. Review of the resident's care plan revealed that it addressed the resident was at risk for edema and sob (shortness of breath) related to copd. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure staffing information that was posted daily was accurate and current. The facility's census was 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure recipes for pureed, chopped, and bite-sized meals were used during meal preparation. This failure had the potential to contribute to an unpleasant dining experience, decreased intake, altered nutritional needs, and weight loss for 15 (#4, 10, 14, 27, 30, 33, 42, 48, 60, 67, 70, 73, 74, 87, 90) residents who received pureed meals, 12 (Residents #1, 19, 34, 37, 49, 51, 54, 56, 64, 72, 76, 77 ) who received finely chopped and 10 (Residents #2, 8, 11, 21, 23, 24, 43, 52, 78, 80 ) who received bite sized.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to have a system in place to ensure 1 resident's (#34) funds was safeguarded against any misappropriation. The deficient practice had the potential to affect a census of 87.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interviews, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and homelike environment as evidenced by failing to ensure shower drains in Room A were free from excessive hair.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflected the status of 1 (Resident #45) out of 56 sampled residents by failing to ensure that Resident #45 was coded correctly for the use of a wander bracelet.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to develop and/or implement a comprehensive person-centered plan of care and/or follow physician's orders for 2 (#34 and #42) residents as evidence by failing to: 1. Follow physician's orders for applying a carrot splint to the left hand for Resident #34 2. Update Resident #42's care plan to address a urinary tract infection.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's comprehensive care plan was revised for 2 (#21 and #47) out of 30 sampled residents. The facility failed to ensure that comprehensive care plan were updated: 1. to include accurate advance directive code status for Resident #21, and 2. to include the removal of floor mats for Resident #47.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition for 1 (#42) of 4 (#21, #42, #48, and #87) residents investigated for ADLs.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to assure that residents received foods in the appropriate form to support the resident's plan of care, in accordance with their goals and preferences for 1 (#90) resident out of a final sample of 56 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to obtain the recertification of terminal illness for 1 (#21) out of 1 (#21) sampled residents reviewed for hospice.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development of communicable diseases and infection by failing to ensure appropriate hand hygiene was performed during wound care for 1 (#65) resident out of a final sample of 56 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to: 1. Ensure the resident's respiratory equipment was stored properly for 1 (Resident #2) and 2. Indicate when to use BIPAP(Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure) for 1 (Resident #2) out of a 3 residents (Resident #1, #2, and #3) sampled for respiratory care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medical records were accurately documented and maintained in accordance with professional standards of practice for one (# 1 ) resident out of 3 (#1, #2, #3) sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure staffing information posted daily was accurate and current. The facility's census was 96.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good grooming by failing to trim a resident's fingernails for 1 (#2) out 7 (#1-#7) sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident's physician and responsible party were immediately notified when the resident was injured for 1 (Resident #5) of 5 (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5) residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to write a telephone order and obtain a wound culture in a timely manner as ordered by a physician for 1 (#2) out of 5 (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5) sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices by failing to ensure there was documentation of an incident that occurred for 1 (Resident #5) of 2 (Resident #3 and #5) residents reviewed for incidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment as evidenced by failing to ensure that Resident #1's back door frame and north wall were in good repair for 1 (Resident #1) out of 3(#1, #2, and #3) residents sampled.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents received mail on Saturdays. This had the potential to affect 95 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of policy and procedure, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards by failing to follow appropriate food handling practices as evidenced by: 1. Expired foods observed in the kitchen's walk in cooler and dry storage area; 2. Opened food items not labeled with the date and time; and 3. Absent temperature logs for the kitchen's reach in cooler, walk in cooler, and walk in freezer for the week of 03/24/2024-03/30/2024. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the 93 residents who consumed food from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity in a manner that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life by failing to address the resident by her name for 1 (#11) of 2 (#11, #74 ) sampled residents reviewed for dignity.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the resident council minute meetings and interviews, the facility failed to organize resident group meetings in the facility monthly. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 95 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a homelike environment for 1 (#13) out of 3 (#13, #37, #62) residents investigated for environment, out of a total sample of 34 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflected the status of 2 (#63) and (#89) out of 34 sampled residents by failing to ensure that: 1. Resident #63 was coded correctly for medications received; and 2. Resident #89 was coded correctly for use of a restraint.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to implement a person-centered care plan by failing to: 1. Ensure staff repositioned Resident #198 every 2 hours and provided a notebook and pen so she could make her needs known; and 2. Monitor padding on Resident #82's bedframe.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident and/or a resident's RP (Responsible Party) was invited to the resident's care planning meeting for 1 (#70) out of a total sample of 34 residents. This deficient practice had the potential to affect a census of 95.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure activities were provided based on the care plan for 1 (#198) of 1 residents investigated for activities out of a final sample of 34 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and care for 1(#70) of 3 (#30, #41, and #70) residents investigated for Urinary Catheter or UTI (Urinary Tract Infection) out of 34 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that their medication error rate was less than five percent, by failing to administer medications at the right time for 2 (#51, #90) of 5 (#11, #51, #74, #83, #90, ) residents observed during morning medication pass. There were 32 opportunities with 2 errors observed during medication pass with a calculated error rate of 6.25%. This deficient practice had the potential to affect a census of 95 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on data review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure accurate payroll data information was submitted for direct care staffing as required. The facility's census was 95.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections as evidenced by staff failing to remove PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) prior to exiting Resident #12's room who was on contact isolation precautions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide a call system to allow residents to call staff for assistance for 3 (#37, #62, #83) of 3 residents investigated for call devices, by failing to: 1. Place the call bell within reach of Residents #37 and 62; and 2. Provide a usable call bell for Resident #83.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Room A had a tan blanket, pillow, blue gloves, an adult brief, green clothing hanger, and two turn cushions on the floor. 2. Room B and C had a white substance at the base of the faucets, and room C faucet was leaking. 3. Room D had a blue surgical mask and paper on the floor. 4. Room E had paper towel, a brown cigarette bud, brown colored stains on the fall mats, a purple pillow on the floor, and a large brown stain in the corner of the room on the floor. 5. Room F had three dresser drawers with a green and white substance on the exterior of the drawers. 6. Room G had a towel on the floor inside the shower.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident was treated with respect and dignity as evidenced by the facility failing to keep urinary catheter bag contained and private for 1 (Resident #4) of 4 (#1, #2, #3, #4) sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a medication cart was locked and the medication cart keys were not left on top of cart when left unattended and/or out of view during medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on policy review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to properly process potentially contaminated resident clothing and linens in order produce sanitary laundry and prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases by failing to ensure detergent was being dispensed during wash cycles. There were 98 residents in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance to prevent accidents during a transfer for 1 (#3) out of 3 (#1, #2, #3) sampled residents.
2 fire safety citations on file: 2 on June 3, 2026.
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) | 3.92 | 3.76 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.21 | 0.31 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.38 | 3.21 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.67 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.03 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 78.2% | 47.6% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 80.0% | 41.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS expects 3.41 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 4.13 on weekdays and 3.38 on weekends, 18% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 20.8% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.95 in April to June 2025 to 3.92 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 | 3.92 | 0.21 | 4.13 | 3.38 | 20.8% | 5 of 90 | 75 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.95 | 0.13 | 4.17 | 3.40 | 11.3% | 0 of 92 | 78 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.35 | 0.14 | 3.63 | 2.64 | 5.8% | 3 of 92 | 80 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.95 | 0.16 | 4.35 | 2.95 | 11.5% | 1 of 91 | 85 |
| 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 | 20.9 | 17.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.6 | 2.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.7 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 17.8 | 17.9 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.0 | 5.6 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.2 | 22.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 24.2 | 28.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.1 | 14.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.8 | 2.7 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Evangeline Oaks Guest House's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (37.6% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
37.6% this home
No different from 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. 48 eligible stays.
11.5% 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. 74 eligible stays.
9.7% 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. 60 eligible stays.
42.3% 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. 26 residents counted.
3.1% 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.
2.3% 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. 3 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: CARENCRO NUSING HOME INC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lafleur, Ella Mae | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 40% | 04/15/2013 |
| Lafleur, Ella Mae | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 04/15/2013 | |
| Lafleur, Ella Mae | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/15/2013 | |
| Lafleur, Ella Mae | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/15/2013 | |
| Lafleur, Ella Mae | General partnership interest | Individual | 04/15/2013 |
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.