1300 Derek Drive, Hammond, LA 70403 · Tangipahoa County · (985) 345-7210
108 certified beds, about 87 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 2001
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 195526 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 15, 2026, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Louisiana average is 6.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 37 health citations since June 2024, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $13,715 in the last three years; the largest was $13,715, and the latest is dated June 7, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.16 hours per resident per day, against 3.76 across Louisiana and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.12 of those hours.
45.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Louisiana average 47.6%).
CMS links it to Plantation Management Company, an affiliated group of 16 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 37 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than 5% for 1 (#70) of 11 residents observed during medication administration. A total of 52 opportunities were observed with 20 medication errors, which resulted in a medication error rate of 38.46%.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's call light was within reach for 1 (#29) of 31 residents reviewed during the initial pool.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure services were provided by the facility to meet quality professional standards. The facility failed to ensure: 1.) Medications were administered safely and timely by leaving the medications at the bedside for 2 (#27 and #41) of 31 residents observed during the initial pool; and2.) A Physician's Order was obtained before administering medications for 1 (#27) of 34 residents reviewed in the final sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out ADLs received the necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for 1 (#19) of 4 residents reviewed for ADL's. The facility failed to trim and clean Resident #19's fingernails.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was offered a therapeutic diet when the health care provider ordered a nutritional supplement for 1 (#42) of 3 residents reviewed for nutritional status.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection. The facility failed to ensure staff practiced appropriate infection control practices and proper glove use for 1 (#66) of 1 resident observed for peri-care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received adequate supervision to prevent elopement for 1 (#3) of 3 residents sampled. The facility failed to ensure S4LPN conducted census checks every two hours as ordered for Resident #3. Review of Resident #3's medical record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, which included Stroke, Vascular Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, Cognitive Communication Deficit, and Wernickes's Encephalopathy. Review of Resident #3's annual MDS with an ARD of 01/07/2026, revealed Resident #3 had a BIMS of 8, which indicated he was moderately cognitively impaired. Further review revealed Resident #3 required a wander/elopement alarm. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure there was sufficient numbers of direct care staff to provide timely assistance with baths/showers for 4 of 4 (#5, #8, #9, and #10) residents reviewed for baths/showers. This deficient practice had the potential to affect any of the 81 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents with Pressure Ulcers received care consistent with professional standards of practice by failing to ensure:1. The nurse documented the date and their initials on the dressings of each treatment performed for 2 (#3 and #4) of 4 (#3, #4, #5, and #6) residents reviewed with Pressure Ulcers; and 2. The nurse applied dressings large enough to fully cover and protect the wounds for 1 (#4) of 4 (#3, #4, #5, and #6) residents reviewed with Pressure Ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding for 1 (#4) of 2 (#4 and #R1) residents reviewed for enteral feedings. The facility failed to ensure the enteral feeding bag was appropriately labeled with a date, time, and nurse initials. Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding for 1 (#4) of 2 (#4 and #R1) residents reviewed for enteral feedings. The facility failed to ensure the enteral feeding bag was appropriately labeled with a date, time, and nurse initials.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to have a measurable evaluation system in place to ensure nursing staff were trained and competent to perform wound treatments as ordered prior to being allowed to independently perform them. This deficient practice was evidenced by failure to ensure: 1. The nurse documented the date and their initials on the dressing of each treatment performed for 1 (#3 and #4) of 4 (#3, #4, #5, and #6) residents present in the facility who were reviewed for wounds; and 2. The nurse applied a dressing large enough to fully cover and protect the wound for 1 (#4) of 4 (#3, #4, #5, and #6) residents present in the facility who were reviewed for wounds. This deficient practice had the potential to affect any of the facility's 31 wounds with active treatment orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to have a system in place to ensure the safe disposition and administration of resident medications for 1 (#2) of 3 (#2, #4, and #5) residents present in the facility who were reviewed for medications. This deficient practice was evidenced by Resident #2, who was not assessed for and did not have a physician's order for self-administration of medications, having an inhaler left at bedside.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that each resident's comprehensive and non-comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed in a timely manner for 5 of 20 (#24, #29, #37, #57, and #60) resident records reviewed in the final sample. The facility failed to submit Resident assessments within 14 calendar days as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to attain or maintain each resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Staff assisted resident's request for assistance with ADLs timely for 3 (#6, #31, and #60) of 13 residents reviewed on Hall B; and 2. S7LPN was aware Resident #32 was at the facility for a time period of 3-4 hours when she refused to go to dialysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety by failing to ensure: 1. Food was properly stored in the walk-in cooler and walk-in freezer; 2. Food was properly stored in the dry food storage room; 3. Dietary employees wore effective hair restraints while engaged in the handling and preparation of food; 4. Ceiling vents in the kitchen were properly cleaned and free of black and grey substances; and 5. Meals carts were properly cleaned and free of debris. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the 79 residents who were served food from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure an infection prevention and control program was maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Nursing staff sanitized insulin pen stoppers prior to attaching an insulin pen needle for 2 (#19 and #69) of 3 (#19, #69, and #391) residents reviewed for insulin administration; and 2. Nursing staff donned proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) during direct resident care for 2 of 2 (#1 and #76) residents whom required EBP (Enhanced Barrier Precautions).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to complete a significant change MDS within 14 calendar days after determining there was a significant change in residents status for 2 of 20(#6 and #29) sampled resident's.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was developed within 48 hours of admission to the facility for 1 (#290) of 20 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who required assistance to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene for 1 (#240) of 2 (#37 and #240) residents reviewed for ADLs.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide wound care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for 1 (#240) of 3 (#19, #76, #240) sampled residents reviewed for wound care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored and labeled properly in accordance with current accepted professional principles. The facility failed to ensure medications for Resident #190 were labeled properly, not expired and not available for administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure garbage and waste were properly contained in the outdoor trash dumpster.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR) was accurately documented and complete for 2 (#32 and #60) of 20 residents reviewed in the final sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure nurse staffing data was posted on a daily basis at the beginning of each shift and readily accessible to residents and visitors. This deficient practice had the potential to affect any of the 82 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain accurate documentation for 2 (#1 and #3) of 3 (#1, #2, and #3) sampled residents. The facility failed to ensure: 1. Resident #1's daily wound care was accurately documented; and 2. Resident #3's oxygen use was accurately documented.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary care and services for the provision of respiratory care in accordance with professional standards. The facility failed to ensure oxygen was administered as ordered by the physician for 1 (#3) of 2 (#2 and #3) residents reviewed for oxygen therapy.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate weekly skin assessments were completed for 2 (#2 and #3) of 2 sampled residents. The deficient practice had the potential to affect any of 88 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure all complaint surveys since the last annual survey were available for resident review. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the 88 residents who currently resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, observations, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' assessments accurately reflected the resident's status by failing to ensure a resident's Minimum Data Set was accurately coded for an indwelling catheter for 1 (#2) of 2 (#1 and #2) residents reviewed for catheters.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors for 1(#78) of 33 residents reviewed in the final sample. The facility failed to ensure Resident #78 received Eliquis as ordered by the physician. This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation for Resident #78, a resident with a history of Pulmonary Embolism and Acute Embolism and Thrombus of the Lower Extremity, on [DATE] at 08:00 a.m. when S5LPN discontinued his order for Eliquis without a physician's order. Resident #78 did not receive Eliquis as ordered from [DATE] through [DATE]. Resident #78 was found on [DATE] at 12:00 a.m., lying on the right side of the floor, unresponsive, pulseless and not breathing. The coroner's report read causes of death: Acute Myocardial Infarction vs Pulmonary Embolism; Hypertension' changes of Aging. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to initiate and resolve grievances voiced for 1 (#17) of 33 sampled residents reviewed for grievances.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection. The facility failed to ensure: 1. S3LPN and S4LPN practiced proper hand hygiene for 3 of 3 (#11, #129, #130) residents observed for medication administration; and 2. S4LPN disinfected blood glucose meters between resident use for 1of 1 (#130) residents observed for blood glucose monitoring. This deficient practice had the potential to affect any of the 79 residents currently residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 (#10) of 33 residents reviewed in the final sample.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to meet the needs of 1 (#1) of 33 residents reviewed in the final sample. The facility failed to develop a care plan with interventions for a resident with diabetes who frequently refuses blood glucose monitoring.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure resident's received the necessary services to maintain personal hygiene for 1 (#17) of 2 (#17 and #45) residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents' drug regimens were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications for 2 (#4 and #7) of 6 (#1, #4, #7 #10, #35 and #43) residents reviewed for unnecessary psychotropic medications. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4 and Resident #7 had PRN orders for psychotropic drugs that were limited to 14 days.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to post nurse staffing data on a daily basis which included the total resident census number for 2 of 2 areas reviewed for nurse staffing data.
1 fire safety citation on file: 1 on June 7, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| June 7, 2024 | Fine | $13,715 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
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) | 3.16 | 3.76 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.12 | 0.31 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.68 | 3.21 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.79 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.25 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 45.1% | 47.6% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 41.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 4.20 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 3.35 on weekdays and 2.68 on weekends, 20% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.50 in April to June 2025 to 3.16 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 | 3.16 | 0.12 | 3.35 | 2.68 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 87 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.29 | 0.12 | 3.48 | 2.82 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 82 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.29 | 0.13 | 3.48 | 2.82 | 0.5% | 0 of 92 | 83 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.50 | 0.15 | 3.69 | 2.99 | 0.3% | 1 of 91 | 77 |
| 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.
| 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 | 14.6 | 17.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.4 | 2.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.0 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 3.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.0 | 17.9 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.9 | 5.6 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 21.6 | 22.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 33.3 | 28.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 11.5 | 14.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 3.6 | 2.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Heritage Healthcare of Hammond's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (45.3% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
45.3% 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. 46 eligible stays.
10.6% 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. 67 eligible stays.
9.1% 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. 38 eligible stays.
44.4% 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. 27 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. 56 residents counted.
8.4% 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. 56 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. 5 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: PLANTATION MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC. CMS links this home to Plantation Management Company, a group of 16 nursing homes averaging 1.7 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qsst Trust for Gene Oliver Quirk III | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 16% | 01/01/2021 |
| Qsst Trust for Marshall Todd Quirk | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 16% | 01/01/2021 |
| Qsst Trust for Scott Holden Quirk | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 16% | 01/01/2021 |
| Quirk, Cynthia | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 01/10/2011 | |
| Quirk, Gene | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 01/10/2011 | |
| Quirk, Scott | Corporate director | Individual | 01/10/2011 | |
| Delatte, Kimberly | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2011 |
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.