3300 White Street, Monroe, LA 71203 · Ouachita County · (318) 323-9013
91 certified beds, about 44 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2003
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 195596 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 27, 2025, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Louisiana average is 6.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 34 health citations since September 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 3 fines totaling $47,895 in the last three years; the largest was $38,805, and the latest is dated March 25, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.34 hours per resident per day, against 3.76 across Louisiana and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.29 of those hours.
49.0% 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 34 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an RN (Registered Nurse) was on duty for 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week for 4 days within the Fiscal Year, Quarter 2 2025 (January 1-March 31).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide form CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) 10123- Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) as required for 1 (#31) of 3 (#2, #11 and #31) residents reviewed for SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility) Beneficiary Notification. The facility had a census of 37 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical restraints imposed for the purpose of discipline or convenience for 1 (#44) of 1 (#44) residents reviewed for restraints. The facility failed to 1) obtain a consent, 2) have a physician's order and 3) failed to assess the resident prior to placing the resident in a restraint.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing and prevent new ulcers from developing for 1 (#39) of 2 (#15, #39) residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility failed to provide a low air loss mattress for resident #39.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide thickened liquids as ordered by the physician for 1(#18) of 3 (#1, #4, & #18) residents reviewed for nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure infection control measures were practiced to provide a safe, sanitary environment and help prevent the development and transmission of infection for 1 (#22) of 1 residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to store and dispose of suctioning equipment appropriately for Resident #22.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision to prevent elopement for 1 (#1) of 2 (#1 and #2) sampled residents reviewed for elopement.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the Resident Council Meeting minutes and interviews, the facility failed to organize resident group meetings in the facility monthly.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews the facility failed to ensure residents have a right to be treated with respect and dignity, including the right to be free from any physical restraint not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms for 2 (31# and #136) of 3 (#27, #31, and #136) residents investigated for restraints. The facility failed to ensure 1) a pre-restraining assessments was completed and the residents' pelvic restraints were identified on their care plans (#31, #136), and 2) that staff properly applied, monitored, and released a pelvic restraint (#136).
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to conduct comprehensive assessments including 1) a smoking assessment for 1 (#15) of 1 (#15) resident reviewed for smoking, and 2) a pre-restraint assessment for 1 (#136) of 3 (# 27, #31, and #136) residents investigated for restraints.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and time frames to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental, and psychosocial needs. The facilitly failed to ensure 1) residents' care plan were developed for restraints and interventions for pelvic restraints (#31, #136); and 2) residents' care plan was not implemented regarding monitoring for bleeding (#24). Resident #31 Review of the record for resident #31 revealed date of admission on [DATE] with following diagnoses: alcoholic cardiomyopathy, urinary tract infection, metabolic encephalopathy, syphilis,and heart failure. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the residents' care plans were revised to meet the residents' needs, by failing to ensure the resident's care plan was revised to include all new fall interventions in a timely manner for 2 (#2, and #24) of 4 (#2, #7, #24, and #31) residents reviewed for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents remained as free of accident hazards as possible for 2 (#2, #31) of 4 (#2, #7, #24, and #31) residents reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to ensure: 1) a thorough investigation was conducted for a resident's falls, staff placed a resident's fall mat in proper place, the resident's care plan was revised to include all new fall interventions in a timely manner, and the fall interventions were appropriate for the type of incident that occurred (#2); and 2) an investigation was conducted for an injury of unknown origin (#31).
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that nursing staff are able to demonstrate competency in skills necessary to care for resident needs for 3 (#236, #27, and #186) of 3 (#236, #27, and #186) residents records reviewed. The facility failed by 1) not having documentation of sites for administration of insulin and by having omitted medications for resident #236, 2) not having a fall mat and bed alarm in place for resident #27 as ordered by the physician, and 3) not having documentation of accucheck results for resident #186 as ordered by the physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the personnel records, the facility failed to ensure the State Adverse Actions Website checks were completed for Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) monthly for 6 (S10CNA, S11CNA, S12CNA, S17CNA, S18CNA, and S19CNA) of 6 (S10CNA, S11CNA, S12CNA, S17CNA, S18CNA, and S19CNA) personnel files reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the policy, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals are stored in locked compartments by having an open medication cart, unlocked and drawers open with medications in direct view and staff not present. The medication cart was in a place where residents and unauthorized staff could access the medication cart.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety as evidence by, 1) having dirty serving trays on a rolling cart, 2) having a grime build up on the kitchen cabinets, shelves, and window ledge, 3) storing an expired nutritional supplement in the refrigerator, and 4) storing food items that belonged to an employee in the storage room and available for resident use.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and review of the facility's Infection Control Records, the facility failed to ensure the Infection Preventionist, who is responsible for the facility's infection prevention and control program, had completed specialized training in infection prevention and control.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain all mechanical equipment in safe operating condition by having shavings on the manual can opener.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the personnel records and interviews, the facility failed to ensure all required in-service training for Certified Nurse Aides (CNA) included dementia management training for 6 (S10CNA, S11CNA, S12CNA, S17CNA, S18CNA and S19CNA) of 6 (S10CNA, S11CNA, S12CNA, S17CNA, S18CNA, and S19CNA) personnel files reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure all medical records regarding the resident's code status consistently reflected the resident's wishes for 1 (#2) of 16 residents reviewed in the initial pool screening for advanced directives.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to immediately notify the physician when a resident had a change in condition for 1 (#186) of 1 (#186) residents reviewed for notification of change by, failing to immediately notify the physician when resident #186's accucheck result was greater than 400 milligrams/deciliter.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews and interviews the facility failed to provide an environment free of accident hazards for 1 (#1) of 1 (#1) residents identified at high risk for elopement. The facility failed to ensure all exit doors were secured to prevent residents at risk for elopement from exiting the facility unsupervised and failed to provide continued monitoring after resident #1 was returned to the facility. This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation on 03/15/2024 at 3:30 p.m. when resident #1 (a cognitively impaired resident identified as an elopement risk) was found a 1/2 block away from the facility. Resident #1 was located 10 minutes after he eloped on 03/15/2024 through an unsecured door and was returned to the facility at 3:45 p.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to be administered in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently by failing to have an adequate system in place to ensure 1(#1) of 1 ((#1) residents who was at high risk for elopement was adequately supervised to prevent Resident #1 from eloping from the facility. This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy situation on 03/15/2024 at 3:30 p.m. when resident #1 (a cognitively impaired resident identified as an elopement risk) was found a 1/2 block away from the facility. Resident #1 was located 10 minutes after he eloped on 03/15/2024 through an unsecured door and was returned to the facility at 3:45 p.m. Resident #1 was located at 3:40 p.m., by a staff member and was found in a ditch, sitting in water, and had a laceration to his left eye and bruise to his left shoulder. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from verbal abuse by staff when staff used profanity and threatening language towards the resident. The incident involved 1 (#1) of 3 (#1, #2, #3) sampled residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents and incidents for 2 (#1 and #2) of 3 (#1, #2, and #3) sampled residents reviewed for incidents and accidents. The facility failed to ensure resident #1 and #2 received increased supervision after an altercation with each other.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement the plan of care and follow policy and procedures related to resident refusal of medication. The facility failed to ensure nursing staff reported resident refusal of treatment to their supervisor, director of nurses, physician, or responsible party for 1 (#14) of 23 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the pharmacist failed to identify irregularities to the attending physician and the facility's medical director and director of nursing for 2 (#14, #40) of 7 (#6,#9,#11,#14,#18,#34,#40) sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications and insulin administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure adequate monitoring was recorded for 1(#40) of 5(#9,#11,#18,#34,#40) residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. On 09/19/23 at 02:01 p.m., Resident # 40 was observed in his room. Socks and shoes were on both of Resident # 40`s feet. Resident #40 was not sure if his feet had swelling. Record review revealed Resident # 40 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included alcoholic cardiomyopathy, respiratory failure, congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic kidney disease, anemia, alcohol abuse, and syphilis. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation of the medication pass, review of current physician orders, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that it is free from medication error rate of five percent or greater by committing 5 errors out 29 opportunities for an error rate of 17.24%.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the dietary menu, and interviews, the facility to ensure the menu was followed for 6 (#4, #8, #9, #19, #27, and #38) of 6 (#4, #8, #9, #19, #27, and #38) residents who were ordered a pureed diet and received their meals from the kitchen. The facility failed to ensure that mustard greens and cornbread were pureed, available, and offered to the residents with orders for a pureed diet and who received their meals from the kitchen during the lunch service.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, and distribute in a sanitary manner. The facility failed to: 1) ensure that foods including ice for resident consumption was stored a refrigerator, deep freezer, and /or ice machine; 2) ensure foods stored in the refrigerator and deep freezer were properly sealed and not exposed to air; 3) ensure the kitchen cabinet doors were cleaned; and, 4) ensure that foods brought into the facility by visitors were not stored inside of the kichen deep freezer. According to review of the Physician Orders List provided by S3Dietary Manager, there was a total of 36 residents that received a meal from the kitchen and could be affected by the above mentioned failed practice.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to electronically submit complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll, to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the personnel records, training records, and interviews, the facility failed to provide the required in-service training for nurse aides that included dementia management training for 6 (S7CNA, S8CNA, S9CNA, S10CNA, S11CNA, and S12CNA) of 6 Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) (S7CNA, S8CNA, S9CNA, S10CNA, S11CNA, and S12CNA) reviewed for dementia care training.
3 fire safety citations on file: 3 on August 27, 2025.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 25, 2024 | Fine | $38,805 |
| September 25, 2023 | Fine | $4,545 |
| September 18, 2023 | Fine | $4,545 |
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) | 3.34 | 3.76 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.29 | 0.31 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.63 | 3.21 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.06 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.99 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 49.0% | 47.6% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 41.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.38 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 3.64 on weekdays and 2.63 on weekends, 28% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 4.9% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.38 in April to June 2025 to 3.34 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 | 3.34 | 0.29 | 3.64 | 2.63 | 4.9% | 0 of 90 | 44 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.75 | 0.31 | 4.06 | 2.94 | 4.3% | 1 of 92 | 41 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.21 | 0.34 | 4.48 | 3.52 | 6.0% | 1 of 92 | 39 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.38 | 0.23 | 4.67 | 3.63 | 2.9% | 0 of 91 | 37 |
| 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 | 13.6 | 17.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.6 | 1.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.0 | 2.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.7 | 17.9 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.2 | 5.6 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.3 | 22.7 | 15.4 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.1 | 2.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Mary Goss Nursing Home's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 6 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 19 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 17 eligible stays.
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: 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. 15 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. 21 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. 21 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: MARY GOSS NURSING HOME, INC.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davis, Eddye | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 25% | 07/01/2003 |
| Davis, Faith Marie | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 6% | 07/01/2003 |
| Howell, Michelle | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 6% | 07/01/2003 |
| Wilson, Anthony | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Individual | 13% | 07/01/2003 |
| Wilson, Anthony | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/01/2003 |
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.