725 Mitchell Lane, Shreveport, LA 71106 · Caddo County · (318) 868-2789
180 certified beds, about 113 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1995
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 195312 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on February 12, 2026, inspectors cited 6 health deficiencies (the Louisiana average is 6.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 41 health citations since October 2023, 8 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (6 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 4 fines totaling $422,178 in the last three years; the largest was $225,456, and the latest is dated January 30, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.88 hours per resident per day, against 3.76 across Louisiana and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.26 of those hours.
51.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Louisiana average 47.6%).
CMS links it to Nexion Health, an affiliated group of 51 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 41 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observations and interviews the facility failed to provide appropriate infection control practices for 1 (#3) of 1 resident reviewed with an indwelling catheter. The facility failed to provide privacy and use appropriate infection control practices when removing Resident #3's catheter.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of infection. The facility failed to ensure:Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) posted outside the resident's room for 1 (Resident #2) of 3 residents reviewed for EBP, Suctioning supplies were stored properly for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents who needed respiratory care, including tracheostomy care
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews the facility failed to accommodate the needs of 2 (#5, #100) out of 4 (#5, #15, #21, #100) residents reviewed for environment. The facility failed to ensure:Resident #5 had a cord on the wall light next to the bed. Resident #100's bathroom emergency call light was functional.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to provide services to prevent further contractures and potential decline in range of motion for 2 (#24, #81 ) of 2 residents reviewed for positioning & mobility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent accidents and ensure the residents' environment remained free of hazards for 1 (#83) of 1 residents reviewed for smoking. The facility failed to:1. Ensure Resident #83 was supervised while smoking according to the facility's policy and the residents' plan of care;2. Ensure Resident #83's smoking materials were secured according to the facility's policy and the residents' plan of care, and;3. Ensure Resident #83's smoking safety evaluations were conducted quarterly according to the facility's policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide appropriate and sufficient services, treatment and care, based upon current standards of practice and the resident's comprehensive assessment and care plan to prevent urinary tract infections. The facility failed to provide suprapubic catheter care for 1 (#122) of 3 residents reviewed for urinary catheter or UTI.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation and interview the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The facility failed to ensure resident snack/nourishment refrigerators contained sealed, dated, labeled and dated food items from residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services for 1 (#90) of 2 (#90, #3) residents reviewed for tube feeding. The facility failed to ensure Resident #90's tube feeding and water bags were labeled correctly.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews the facility failed to protect resident's right to be free from physical abuse by a staff member for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3) sampled residents. The deficient practice resulted in actual harm of Resident #1 on 01/10/2025 at 9:15 p.m. when S4 CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) bent Resident #1's fingers back to her wrist. Resident #1 was assessed by S6 LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) on the morning of 01/11/2025 and found to have swelling and bruising to her right hand. Resident #1's right hand x-ray dated 01/11/2025 revealed findings consistent with acute fracture of mid aspect of middle phalanx 2nd digit right hand with acute fracture of distal 2nd metacarpal. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews the facility failed to ensure staff reported alleged violations regarding abuse immediately to the proper facility authority as per facility policy for 1 (#1) of 3 ( #1, #2, #3) sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure baseline care plans had been developed and implemented by failing to identify interventions to minimize falls for 3 (#3, #5, and #6) of 6 sampled residents assessed as being at risk for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan with adequate interventions to address resident's medical, physical, mental and psychosocial needs for 1 (#6) of 6 (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6) residents who had a potential for falls.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents at risk for pressure ulcers received the necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, and/or to prevent the development of new ulcers unless the individual's clinical condition demonstrated they were unavoidable for 1 (Resident #25) resident reviewed for transmission based precautions. The deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy for Resident #25 on 11/01/2024 when Resident #25 was admitted to the hospital when bilateral heel boot protectors were removed and a border dressing to the left heel dated 5/17 was found to be in place. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to be administered in a manner that enabled its resources to be used effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being for 1 (Resident #25) resident reviewed for transmission based precautions. The facility failed to ensure Resident #25 received complete and timely skin assessments and proper ADL (Activities of Daily Living) care. The deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy for Resident #25 on 11/01/2024 when Resident #25 was admitted to the hospital when bilateral heel boot protectors were removed and a border dressing to the left heel dated 5/17 was found to be in place. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to provide services that meet professional standards for 2 of 2 (#44, #90) out of a total sample of 28 residents. The facility failed to ensure nurses administered medications and remained with the residents until the medications were taken.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were assessed for the risk of entrapment from bed rails and failed to obtain informed consent from the resident or resident's representative prior to installation of bed rails for 9 (#8, #9, #16, #39, #44, #90, #94, #108, #368) out of 9 (#8, #9, #16, #39, #44, #90, #94, #108, #368) residents reviewed for bed rails.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observations, and interview the facility failed to provide services to prevent further contractures and potential decline in range of motion for 1 (#34 ) of 2 (#34, #90) residents reviewed for limitations in ROM (range of motion).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure the kitchen's dishwasher was working in a safe operating condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to develop an individualized person-centered plan of care to meet the needs of 1 (#3) of 5 (#1, #2, #3, #4, and #5) residents whose plan of care was reviewed. The facility failed to ensure the plan of care included an accurate assessment for resident #3 by not acknowledging the behaviors exhibited. The facility failed to develop a plan of care and implement interventions to care for resident #3's behaviors.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interviews, and video evidence review the facility failed to ensure 1 (#4) of 1 (#4) residents reviewed for accidents received the necessary supervision and assistive devices to each resident to prevent avoidable accidents including a fall. The deficient practice resulted in actual harm for Resident #4 on 03/19/2024 at 8:11 p.m. when Resident #4 suffered a major injury when he fell out of the bed to the floor when incontinence care was being administered. S2 CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) was providing incontinence care to Resident #4 and when S2 CNA turned to get an item out of a bedside table drawer, Resident #4 rolled off the bed and to the floor. Resident #4 was sent to a local hospital ER (Emergency Room) on 03/19/2024 and the hospital records showed Resident #4 suffered a closed non-displaced fracture of the right patella (kneecap). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and video review the facility failed to provide services according to the written plan of care for 1(#4) of 4 (#1, #2, #3, #4) residents reviewed for plan of care. The facility failed to ensure fall mats were in place as ordered by a physician.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from physical abuse by staff for Resident #1, free from physical and verbal abuse and psychosocial harm by staff for Resident #5, and free from verbal abuse by staff for Residents #10, #11, and #12 (5 residents) out of 11 (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #10, #11, #12, #14 and #15) sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy when: 1. On 12/23/2023 at approximately 7:30 p.m., S3CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) physically abused Resident #1 by hitting Resident #1 on right shoulder and right cheek and slapping Resident #1's lower arm. Resident #1 is cognitively impaired and nonverbal, with the exception of the word Si. Resident #1 is capable of answering questions by nodding yes/no, using hand gestures and saying Si for yes. [...]
Inspectors wroteI. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to be administered in a manner that enabled its resources to be used effectively and efficiently to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being for 5 (#1, #5, #10, #11, and #12) of 11 residents (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #10, #11, #12, #14 and #15) reviewed for abuse: 1. by failing to ensure a system was in place to protect Resident #1 from physical abuse by staff, Resident #5 from verbal abuse and psychosocial harm by staff, and Residents #10, #11, and #12 from verbal abuse by staff, prevent abuse from happening again and ensure all residents were free from abuse; 2. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents with pressure ulcers received the necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, and/or to prevent the development of new ulcers unless the individual's clinical condition demonstrated that they were unavoidable for 2 (#16, #17) of 6 (#7, #8, #9, #13, #16, #17) residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The deficient practice resulted in an immediate jeopardy for Resident #16 on 12/15/2023 when S7 Wound Care FNP assessed Resident #16's sacral wound as deteriorating and with s/s (signs and symptoms) of infection. On 12/15/2023, S7 Wound Care FNP wrote a new order to change the wound care treatment and increase the frequency of Resident #16's sacral pressure ulcer wound care dressing changes from M/W/F (Monday/Wednesday/Friday) to every day. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews the facility failed to ensure nursing staff possessed the competency to provide nursing related services as evidenced by failing to enter physician orders as written and provide care as ordered for 2 (#16, #17) of 6 (#7, #8, #9, #13, #16, #17) residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The deficient practice resulted in an immediate jeopardy for Resident #16 on 12/15/2023 when S9 Wound Care Nurse failed to enter Resident #16's wound care order timely and accurately leading to a delay in care, resulting in a decline and worsening of Resident #16's sacral pressure ulcer and impending hospitalization on 12/25/2023. Resident #16's 12/15/2023 wound care order was entered: 1. on 12/20/2023, five days after the order was written, 2. utilizing wound cleanser instead of the ordered 0.125% Dakin's Solution, and 3. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to accommodate the needs of 1 (#13) of 17 sampled residents. The facility failed to ensure Resident #13 had a call light in place.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure care plan had been revised for 2 (#16, #17) of 6 (#7, #8, #9, #13, #16, #17) residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews the facility failed to ensure the Quality Assurance (QA) committee identified a quality deficiency and failed to develop and implement an appropriate plan of action to correct the deficient practice for 5 (#1, #5, #10, #11, and #12) of 11 residents (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #10, #11, #12, #14 and #15) reviewed for abuse and for 2 (#16, #17) of 6 (#7, #8, #9, #13, #16, #17) residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The facility failed to have a system in place to: 1. Ensure ongoing training of staff was provided to identify vulnerable residents at risk for abuse and address residents with behaviors, dementia and low BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) scores. 2. Ensure the Wound Care Nurse and other nursing staff who conducted wound care followed S7Wound Care FNP's (Family Nurse Practitioner) wound care orders.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to provide appropriate care and services according to standards of professional practice for 2 (#2, #3) of 3 (#1, #2, #3) sampled residents. The facility failed to insure Foley catheter care had been completed as ordered.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident received care and necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developingv for 2 (#1, #4) out of 4 (#1, #2, #3, #4) sampled residents. The facility failed to: 1. Provide wound care for as ordered for Resident #1 2. Follow recommendations and orders of Certified Wound Care Nurse for Resident #1 3. Consult Registered Dietician (RD) for Resident #1 wound healing, 2. Complete weekly skin checks for Resident #4, and 3. Complete Braden Scale for predicting pressure sore risk for Resident #4 upon admission.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record reviews, and interviews, 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 infections by failing to perform wound care using proper infection control procedure for 1 (#1) out of 2 (#1, #4) residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure grievance was addressed and investigated for 1 (#3) of 4 (#1, #2, #3, #4) sampled residents. The facility failed to follow their policy/procedures for reporting and investigating grievances.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the MDS (minimum data set) assessments accurately reflected the resident's status by failing to assess residents for behaviors for 1 (#2) of 4 (#1, #2, #3, #4) sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for 1 (#1) out of 4 (#1, #2, #3, #4) sampled residents. The facility failed to develop a plan of care for Residrent #1's skin integrity, wounds and antipsychotropic medication use.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide services that met professional standards for 2 (#12, #30) of 44 sampled residents reviewed. The facility failed to ensure safe medication administration practices by leaving medication at bedside.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to ensure a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living receives the necessary services to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for 3 (#25, #96, #106) of 4 residents (#25, #76, #96, #106) observed for nail care.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observations and interviews the facility failed to provide appropriate infection control practices for 2 (#111, #63) out of 2 residents reviewed for urinary catheter/ UTI (Urinary Tract Infection). The facility failed to ensure: 1. Resident #111's catheter bag was emptied every shift and personal care items were labeled and stored properly. 2. Resident #63's personal care items were labeled and stored properly
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to distribute food under sanitary conditions. The facility failed to ensure staff sanitized hands between residents when distributing resident meal trays on the hall A. This had the potential to affect any of the 31 residents receiving meal trays on the hall A.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observation, and interviews and the facility failed to ensure 1 (#268) resident out of 4 (#268,#18, #43, #106) residents reviewed for nutrition. Resident #268 did not have an order for a diet and did not receive a meal tray.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident receives necessary respiratory care and services in accordance with professional standards of practice and the resident's plan of care for 1 (#91) of 1 (#91) resident reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure the oxygen concentrator filter was clean for resident #91 who required a tracheostomy and oxygen.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews, observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program as evidenced by 1. observations and interviews about flies on Resident #49 2. observations of flies on Resident #24. There was 122 residents that resided in the facility according to the census and condition of Residents dated 10/11/2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| January 30, 2025 | Fine | $12,425 |
| November 15, 2024 | Fine | $225,456 |
| April 4, 2024 | Fine | $16,801 |
| December 6, 2023 | Fine | $167,496 |
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) | 3.88 | 3.76 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.26 | 0.31 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.44 | 3.21 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.23 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.38 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 51.2% | 47.6% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 42.9% | 41.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 1 |
CMS expects 3.27 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 4.05 on weekdays and 3.44 on weekends, 15% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.2% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.61 in April to June 2025 to 3.88 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 | 3.88 | 0.26 | 4.05 | 3.44 | 1.2% | 0 of 90 | 113 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.79 | 0.22 | 3.96 | 3.36 | 2.5% | 0 of 92 | 117 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.78 | 0.30 | 3.96 | 3.33 | 4.7% | 0 of 92 | 119 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.61 | 0.18 | 3.82 | 3.08 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 119 |
| 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 | 14.5 | 17.8 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.1 | 1.2 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.2 | 2.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.5 | 3.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.8 | 17.9 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.3 | 5.6 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 20.5 | 22.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 28.9 | 28.0 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 18.0 | 14.8 | 12.0 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Pierremont Healthcare Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (44.4% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
44.4% 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. 26 eligible stays.
12.0% 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. 45 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. 16 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. 29 residents counted.
2.4% 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. 29 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: NEXION HEALTH AT PIERREMONT, INC.. CMS links this home to Nexion Health, a group of 51 nursing homes averaging 2.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nexion Health of Ohi Inc | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 09/14/2005 |
| Nexion Health Leasing, Inc. | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/15/2002 | |
| Nexion Health, Inc. | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 01/15/2002 | |
| Bolt, Bretton | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 01/15/2002 | |
| Kirley, Francis | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 01/15/2002 | |
| Forrest, Edward | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 10/29/2018 | |
| Herdrich, William | Corporate director | Individual | 02/01/2012 | |
| Kirley, Francis | Corporate director | Individual | 01/15/2002 | |
| Lee, Brian | Corporate director | Individual | 02/01/2012 | |
| Riner, Meera | Corporate director | Individual | 02/01/2012 | |
| Kirley, Francis | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/15/2002 | |
| Lee, Brian | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/01/2012 | |
| Riner, Meera | Corporate officer | Individual | 02/01/2012 | |
| Nexion Health, Inc. | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/15/2002 | |
| Bolt, Bretton | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/15/2002 | |
| Forrest, Edward | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 04/23/2018 | |
| Herdrich, William | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2012 | |
| Kirley, Francis | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/15/2002 | |
| Lee, Brian | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2012 | |
| Riner, Meera | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 02/01/2012 |
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.