Citations in Louisiana
Statistics, citations and compliance trends for long-term care facilities in Louisiana.
Statistics for Louisiana (Last 12 Months)
Financial Impact (Last 12 Months)
Latest citations in Louisiana
Meals were not served according to residents’ meal tickets and dietary needs. A resident who was supposed to receive chocolate pudding did not get it, a resident with a milk allergy and dislike of fresh vegetables was served raw vegetables and a milk-containing supplement, another resident did not receive the ordered water with lunch, and a resident did not receive the listed sandwich toppings. The Dietary Mgr and Regional Dietary Mgr acknowledged the meal ticket mismatches.
Dietician-approved pureed menu not followed for two residents with pureed diet orders. Staff served pureed eggs, pureed pork breakfast sausage patties, and grits instead of the approved pureed pancakes and hash browns with thickened gravy, and the Dietary Manager stated the menu changes had not been approved by the dietician.
Aspiration precautions were not followed when an LPN fed a resident with dysphagia, dementia, and significant cognitive impairment. The resident’s care plan and ST recommendations called for small bites, alternating bites and sips, no straws, and slow feeding, but the LPN used overfilled spoonfuls, did not offer fluids between bites, and gave cola through a straw while the resident coughed during the meal.
Failure to Protect Resident from Physical Abuse: A resident with a hx of TBI, schizophrenia, and intermittent explosive disorder physically assaulted another resident in the dining room after an exchange of words. The assaulted resident had Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, was severely cognitively impaired, and sustained a hip fx and multiple rib fx requiring emergent surgery. Staff and the NP confirmed the abuse, and the aggressor stated he would do it again.
Failure to timely report alleged abuse and neglect: A resident’s fall with injury was later found to involve a femur fracture, but the incident was not reported within the required 24-hour window. In a separate event, a resident reported verbal abuse by an agency CNA, and the DON acknowledged the allegation was not reported to the state agency within the required 2 hours.
A resident with Alzheimer's disease, HTN, and anxiety disorder did not receive the final dose of an ordered Lasix regimen, and a chest x-ray ordered for edema was not sent to imaging in a timely manner. The record later showed a large L-sided pleural effusion with overlying atelectasis vs consolidation, and the resident was sent to the ER for evaluation of pleural effusion and SOB. The Unit Manager and DON acknowledged the missed Lasix dose and delayed x-ray.
Meals Not Served According to Meal Tickets and Dietary Needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents’ meals were served according to their nutritional needs, special dietary needs, and preferences for 4 of 6 residents reviewed for dietary services. Resident #R4’s dinner meal ticket indicated that he was to receive chocolate pudding with all meals, but observation of the dinner tray showed that chocolate pudding was not served. In an interview, the Dietary Manager stated that Resident #R4 should have received chocolate pudding with the dinner tray. Resident #R5’s lunch meal ticket indicated a milk allergy and a dislike of fresh vegetables, yet the lunch tray included fresh/raw lettuce and tomatoes with the fish po-boy and also included a mighty shake containing milk. Resident #R6’s lunch meal ticket indicated that she was to receive chocolate milk and one other beverage/water, but observation showed that only chocolate milk was served. Resident #R7’s lunch meal ticket indicated a regular diet with no likes or dislikes listed, but the lunch tray did not include lettuce or tomatoes with the fish po-boy. The Dietary Manager acknowledged that Resident #R5 should not have received fresh vegetables or a mighty shake, Resident #R6 should have received water in addition to chocolate milk, and Resident #R7 should have been served lettuce and tomatoes. The Regional Dietary Manager confirmed that residents should be served meals in accordance with their meal tickets.
Dietician-Approved Pureed Menu Not Followed
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to serve the dietician-approved pureed menu for dinner for 2 residents with pureed diet orders. The Week 2 menu specified pureed buttermilk pancakes with margarine and syrup, pureed breakfast sausage, and pureed hash browns with thickened gravy for 07/30/2026 dinner, but observation at 5:36 PM showed one resident served pureed eggs, pureed pork breakfast sausage patties, and grits instead of the ordered pureed pancakes and hash browns. A second observation at 6:01 PM showed another resident served the same alternate meal of pureed eggs, pureed pork breakfast sausage patties, and grits rather than the approved menu items. During interview, the Dietary Manager stated that all residents with pureed diet orders were not served the dietician-approved pureed dinner menu and that the menu changes to pureed eggs and grits had not been approved by the dietician.
Aspiration precautions not followed during meal feeding
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure a resident's aspiration precautions were followed during a meal. Resident #3 had diagnoses including left sided hemiplegia, hemiparesis, dysphagia, dementia, and cognitive communication deficit, and the admission MDS indicated significant cognitive impairment and that the resident was at risk for coughing or choking during meals. The resident required a mechanically altered diet, and speech therapy documented that the resident's swallow function was at risk for potential aspiration and that swallow precautions should be reinforced. The care plan directed staff to use small bites and sips, avoid straws, instruct the resident to eat slowly, and instruct the resident to chew each bite thoroughly. During observation, an LPN fed the resident overfilled spoonfuls of food, with food falling from the spoon onto the resident, and continued feeding in this manner without offering fluids until about half the meal was eaten. The resident coughed twice, after which the LPN opened a can of cola, inserted a straw, and assisted the resident to drink from it; the resident coughed again and continued drinking from the straw. The LPN continued to feed overfilled spoonfuls, did not provide liquids between bites, and allowed straw use for the remainder of the meal. The speech therapist stated the resident required small bites, should not have been given overfilled spoonfuls, and should have had bites and sips alternated at a slow feeding rate with frequent breaks. The DON and Administrator were informed of the observation and could not explain why the aspiration precautions were not followed.
Failure to Protect Resident from Physical Abuse
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to protect residents from physical abuse when one resident struck another resident during breakfast in the dining room. The assaulted resident had diagnoses of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia and was severely cognitively impaired, with a BIMS score of 3. The resident was observed involved in an incident with the other resident and then fell to the ground. He was unable to perform active range of motion to the left lower extremity and complained of left hip pain before being transferred to the hospital by ambulance. Hospital records showed the resident sustained an acute comminuted mildly displaced intertrochanteric left hip fracture and acute traumatic nondisplaced fractures of the right seventh, eighth, and ninth ribs. He required emergent surgical intervention for the left hip fracture. Prior to the incident, he had been independently ambulatory and able to complete ADLs with verbal cues from staff. After the incident, he required a wheelchair for mobility, moderate assistance with ADLs, and maximum assistance with transfers. The resident who caused the injury had diagnoses including traumatic brain injury, paranoid schizophrenia, depressive disorders, intermittent explosive disorder, and anxiety disorder. His MDS showed intact cognition with a BIMS of 15 and documented physical and verbal behavior toward others. His record showed prior aggressive behaviors toward other residents, including grabbing another resident’s shirt and other incidents of aggression. On the day of the event, he exchanged words with the other resident, then slapped him twice and attempted to continue hitting him while he was on the ground. Facility staff and the nurse practitioner confirmed that the resident physically abused the other resident and stated he showed no remorse and said he would do it again.
Failure to Timely Report Alleged Abuse and Neglect
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to report alleged abuse and neglect within the required timeframe for 2 residents reviewed for facility-reported incidents. For Resident #19, who had diagnoses including atherosclerosis of the left leg with ulceration, insomnia, glaucoma, muscle wasting and atrophy, and difficulty walking, the record showed a fall with injury at 5:15 a.m. on 07/12/2026. The incident was reported to the State Survey and Certification Agency on 07/13/2026 at 1:44 p.m. After the fall, the resident initially denied pain and had no injuries noted, but later complained of pain and an x-ray revealed a left femur fracture. The DON acknowledged the fall with injury was not reported within the 24-hour window required for neglect. For Resident #70, who had diagnoses including dysphagia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, neuralgia and neuritis, and chronic kidney disease, the grievance form stated that an agency CNA assisting the resident said he was a "crazy f__d up person." The incident was discovered at 6:30 a.m. on 07/08/2026 and reported to the State Survey and Certification Agency at 3:21 p.m. that same day. The CNA Coordinator confirmed the resident reported the verbal abuse allegation and informed the DON, and the DON acknowledged the allegation was not reported within 2 hours to the appropriate state agency as required.
Failure to Carry Out Ordered Diuretic and Imaging
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement the plan of care for Resident #90 by not administering the final dose of an ordered diuretic regimen and not arranging a chest x-ray in a timely manner. Resident #90 was admitted with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, hypertension, and anxiety disorder. Physician orders included a chest x-ray due to edema and Lasix 20 mg once, then Lasix 40 mg by mouth for 3 days. Review of the MAR showed the final Lasix 40 mg dose was not given, and the medical record did not show a chest x-ray result from the original order date. A later chest x-ray showed a large left-sided pleural effusion with overlying atelectasis versus consolidation, and the resident was sent to the ER for evaluation of the pleural effusion and shortness of breath. Interviews with the Unit Manager and DON confirmed the chest x-ray was not notified to imaging until several days after the order and that the third Lasix dose had not been administered as ordered.
Find your facility
Search by name to see its inspection history, citations and penalties — and how to prepare for the next survey.
Get alerted when Immediate Jeopardy citations hit in Louisiana — free
You're all set
Compliance trends in Louisiana
Data through Jun 2026Comparisons below measure the most recent period Jul 2025 – Jun 2026 against the prior period Jul 2024 – Jun 2025 (two equal 12-month windows). The most recent 1 months are excluded because CMS is still publishing them.
Top tags by month · last 24 months
dashed = still reportingMonthly citation counts for the 5 most-cited tags. The dashed tail is the 1-month reporting lag.
Frequency movers
Biggest change in how often each tag is cited, as a rate per 100 inspections (so it isn't skewed by survey volume): Jul 2025 – Jun 2026 vs the prior period Jul 2024 – Jun 2025. Only tags with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown.
Severity movers
Tags whose average scope/severity shifted the most: Jul 2025 – Jun 2026 vs the prior period Jul 2024 – Jun 2025. The number is the average severity on the A–L scale (A=0…L=11); the letter is the band it falls in. A rise means the same tag is being cited at a more serious level — note the average can move enough to rank here while staying within the same letter. Same 20-citation minimum applies.
Care domain movers
Citations grouped into CFR care domains — F-tags by their §483 regulatory section (CMS State Operations Manual, Appendix PP) — measured as a rate per 100 inspections: Jul 2025 – Jun 2026 vs the prior period Jul 2024 – Jun 2025. Share is the domain's portion of citations this period; avg severity is the mean scope/severity letter and immediate jeopardy the percentage cited at J–L, both over the current period. Domains with at least 20 citations in both periods are shown; the sparkline tracks the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Immediate jeopardies · this period
Citations at the most serious scope/severity — J–L, immediate jeopardy, residents placed at risk of serious harm or death — over Jul 2025 – Jun 2026 vs the prior period Jul 2024 – Jun 2025. "Surveys with an IJ" counts distinct health inspections that had at least one.
Survey activity · by month
faded/dashed = still reportingCitations each month split into complaint-driven (unscheduled, triggered by grievances) vs standard surveys — bars, left axis — with the number of inspections as a line on the right axis. Rising inspections signal more scrutiny; a rising complaint share means more off-cycle surveys. The most recent 1 months are still being reported.
Deficiency-free survey rate
Share of health surveys that found zero deficiencies — the odds of a clean survey. Jul 2025 – Jun 2026 vs the prior period Jul 2024 – Jun 2025; the most recent 1 months are still being reported (dashed).
Penalties · by month
faded = still reportingTotal civil money penalty dollars imposed on the state's facilities each month — how hard the state is enforcing. The most recent 1 months are still being reported, and penalties often lag citations by several months.
Emerging tags
Tags that weren't established last period but surged — an early warning, distinct from movers (which track already-common tags). Criteria: fewer than 20 citations in the prior period, but at least 10 this period and 2.5× their prior volume. The sparkline shows monthly counts over the last 12 months (left = oldest).
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release October 8, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
In your survey window? See what surveyors are citing.
The Survey-Prep Report maps your facility's risk from 12 months of CMS and state citation data — what's being cited around you and what to check first. $129 one-time.
