27090 Hwy 16, Denham Springs, LA 70726 (opens Google Maps) · Livingston County · (225) 665-5544· 175 certified beds · avg 171 residents/day · certified since Jun 27, 2001 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: PLANTATION MANAGEMENT COMPANY (16 facilities, chain avg rating 1.8★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5 · how star ratings work →
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 1, 2025 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.
Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Mar 21, 2025 (Past Non-Compliance)
Showing the latest 3 of 26 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. F-0584
The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. F-0658
The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. F-0677
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 18, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Mar 18, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Mar 18, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Mar 18, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726 |
| Mar 18, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Mar 18, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Aug 27, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Apr 1, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Feb 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Feb 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · from a complaint · F-0641 |
| Feb 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644 |
| Feb 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Feb 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · from a complaint · F-0694 |
| Feb 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Oct 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint · F-0580 |
| Oct 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Oct 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Jun 26, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · from a complaint · F-0677 |
| Jun 26, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Mar 6, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · from a complaint · F-0677 |
| Mar 6, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Mar 6, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Mar 6, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · from a complaint · F-0585 |
| Mar 6, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Mar 6, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Mar 6, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (6 → 6).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 12 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 8 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 6 | 0 | E |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $8,044.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 1, 2025 | Fine | $8,044 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Louisiana avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.16 | 4.04 | 3.95 | bottom 12% in Louisiana; bottom 20% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.12 | 0.32 | 0.69 | bottom 6% in Louisiana; bottom 1% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.64 | 3.45 | 3.50 | bottom 10% in Louisiana; bottom 14% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.09 | 0.20 | 0.48 | bottom 9% in Louisiana; bottom 1% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 52.4 | 47.6 | 45.8 | bottom 31% in Louisiana; bottom 31% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 60.0 | 41.6 | 42.9 | bottom 27% in Louisiana; bottom 22% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.31, RN 0.12, weekend 2.76.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.31 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 1/5.
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Golden Age Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| QSST Trust for Gene Oliver Quirk III | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 16% | 01/01/2021 |
| QSST Trust for Marshall Todd Quirk | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 16% | 01/01/2021 |
| QSST Trust for Scott Holden Quirk | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 16% | 01/01/2021 |
| Quirk, Cynthia | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 12/07/2009 |
| Quirk, Gene | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 12/07/2009 |
| D'arensbourg, Jordan | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2017 |
| Delatte, Kimberly | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/07/2009 |
| Quirk, Cynthia | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/07/2009 |
| Quirk, Gene | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/07/2009 |
| Quirk, Scott | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/07/2009 |
All 10 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Plantation Management Company — 16 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 15 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harvest Manor Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center | 11.7 mi | Denham Springs, LA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Central Guest House Healthcare & Rehabilitation Ce | 12.0 mi | Baton Rouge, LA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Zachary Manor Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 14.2 mi | Zachary, LA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Lodge at Lane | 14.3 mi | Zachary, LA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Grace Nursing Home | 15.2 mi | Slaughter, LA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Flannery Oaks Guest House | 15.5 mi | Baton Rouge, LA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Pines Retirement Center of Baton Rouge | 15.9 mi | Baton Rouge, LA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| The Woodleigh of Baton Rouge | 16.1 mi | Baton Rouge, LA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| River Oaks Nursing & Rehabilitation Center LLC | 16.2 mi | Baker, LA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Baton Rouge Health Care Center | 16.3 mi | Baton Rouge, LA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Capitol House Nursing and Rehab Center | 16.5 mi | Baton Rouge, LA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Guest House Care Center | 17.1 mi | Baton Rouge, LA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 195524.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details