9301 Oxford Place Ave, Baton Rouge, LA 70809 (opens Google Maps) · E. Baton Rouge County · (225) 924-2851· 144 certified beds · avg 118 residents/day · certified since Nov 1, 1996 · 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: THE BEEBE FAMILY (48 facilities, chain avg rating 2.8★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · 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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Feb 21, 2025 · F-0609 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation.
Why it matters: When incidents aren't reported promptly, abusers may continue harming residents and outside authorities can't step in.
Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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 26, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Feb 21, 2025 · F-0656 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: Without a complete, working care plan, important needs can slip through the cracks and no one is accountable for results.
Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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 26, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Feb 21, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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 26, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Feb 21, 2025 · F-0835 · triggered by a complaint
The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents.
Why it matters: Poor administration often shows up as understaffing, supply shortages, and care problems across the whole facility.
Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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 26, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Oct 18, 2023 · 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 (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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: Oct 14, 2023 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Oct 18, 2023 · F-0609 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation.
Why it matters: When incidents aren't reported promptly, abusers may continue harming residents and outside authorities can't step in.
Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. 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: Oct 14, 2023 (Past Non-Compliance)
Showing the latest 3 of 32 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. F-0755
The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. F-0604
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 5, 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 5, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Mar 5, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604 |
| Mar 5, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693 |
| Dec 9, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Mar 19, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 21, 2025 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Feb 21, 2025 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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 |
| Feb 21, 2025 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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 |
| Feb 21, 2025 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated | The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. · from a complaint · F-0835 |
| Feb 21, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 21, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint · F-0921 |
| Dec 11, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Dec 11, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from. · F-0699 |
| Dec 11, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759 |
| Dec 11, 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 |
| Dec 11, 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. · F-0880 |
| Oct 30, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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 |
| Sep 10, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out. · from a complaint · F-0622 |
| Sep 10, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · from a complaint · F-0623 |
| Sep 10, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · from a complaint · F-0640 |
| Aug 2, 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 |
| Aug 2, 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 |
| Aug 2, 2024 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · from a complaint · F-0732 |
| Nov 8, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Nov 8, 2023 | 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 |
| Nov 8, 2023 | 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 |
| Nov 8, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 18, 2023 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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 |
| Oct 18, 2023 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Aug 29, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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 |
| Aug 29, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (5 → 4).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 8 | 2 | J ▲ |
| 2024 | 12 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 8 | 4 | J ▲ |
| 2026 | 4 | 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 →
3 fines totaling $56,628.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 21, 2025 | Fine | $27,586 |
| Oct 18, 2023 | Fine | $14,521 |
| Oct 18, 2023 | Fine | $14,521 |
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) | 3.78 | 4.04 | 3.95 | bottom 39% in Louisiana; top 49% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.15 | 0.32 | 0.69 | bottom 13% in Louisiana; bottom 1% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.36 | 3.45 | 3.50 | bottom 46% in Louisiana; top 50% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.12 | 0.20 | 0.48 | bottom 32% in Louisiana; bottom 2% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 60.7 | 47.6 | 45.8 | bottom 16% in Louisiana; bottom 15% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 33.3 | 41.6 | 42.9 | top 34% in Louisiana; top 33% 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 3.56, RN 0.15, weekend 3.16.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.56 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Heritage Manor of Baton Rouge II. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Act Investments, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 15% | 01/01/2010 |
| David & Felicia Stallard Child Tr | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 5% | 01/01/2010 |
| Elton Glynn Beebe Jr. & Nancy Doty Beebe Irrv Tr Ua | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 5% | 01/01/2010 |
| Gerard and Alison Danos Childrens Tr | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 01/01/2010 |
| Joseph & Alison Sadler Children Tr | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 01/01/2010 |
| Medico LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 85% | 01/01/2010 |
| Account Management Services INC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2010 |
| Account Management Services INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2010 |
| Administrative Systems INC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2010 |
| Administrative Systems INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2010 |
| Alisons 2016 Fam Tr No 2 | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
| Aria Care Management LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2022 |
| Baton Rouge Heritage House LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
| Beebe 2013 Childrens Tr NG | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
| Beebe, Bobby | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/11/2021 |
| Beebe, Bobby | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/11/2021 |
| Beebe, Elton | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2010 |
| Casteel, Nicholas | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/30/2022 |
| Casteel, Nicholas | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/30/2022 |
| Diagre Devare, Deskameka | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/12/2023 |
Showing 20 of 42 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 22 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
CMS lists this facility under the chain The Beebe Family — 48 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 47 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Landmark of Baton Rouge | 0.0 mi | Baton Rouge, LA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Jefferson Manor Nursing and Rehab Ctr, LLC | 0.7 mi | Baton Rouge, LA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Ollie Steele Burden Manor | 1.6 mi | Baton Rouge, LA | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| White Oak Post Acute Care | 1.6 mi | Baton Rouge, LA | —/5 | SFF | |
| Center Point Health Care and Rehab | 1.8 mi | Baton Rouge, LA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| The Guest House Care Center | 2.7 mi | Baton Rouge, LA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Capitol House Nursing and Rehab Center | 3.1 mi | Baton Rouge, LA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| St Clare Manor Nursing and Rehabilitation | 3.3 mi | Baton Rouge, LA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| The Woodleigh of Baton Rouge | 3.9 mi | Baton Rouge, LA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Pines Retirement Center of Baton Rouge | 4.1 mi | Baton Rouge, LA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Flannery Oaks Guest House | 4.2 mi | Baton Rouge, LA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Baton Rouge General Medical Center, SNF | 4.3 mi | Baton Rouge, LA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in E. Baton Rouge, LA — 24 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 195389.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details