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 →
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Dec 10, 2025
3
Serious findings on record
most recent Aug 8, 2024
$99,451
Fines, last 3 years
5.23
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, pattern · Aug 8, 2024 · F-0700 · triggered by a complaint
The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly.
Why it matters: Improperly used bed rails can trap or injure residents — in the worst cases, causing serious harm.
Severity (K): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Aug 26, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, pattern · Aug 8, 2024 · 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 (K): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Aug 26, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Aug 22, 2023 · 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 (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: Jul 28, 2023 (Past Non-Compliance)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 19 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
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. F-0732
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
View all 19 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
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
Dec 10, 2025
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
Dec 10, 2025
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
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. · F-0732
Dec 10, 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. · F-0880
Sep 18, 2024
F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread
The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. · F-0577
Sep 18, 2024
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
Sep 18, 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. · F-0585
Sep 18, 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
Aug 8, 2024
▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, pattern
The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. · from a complaint · F-0700
Aug 8, 2024
▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, pattern
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
Aug 22, 2023
▲ G · Actual 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
Aug 22, 2023
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
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 22, 2023
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint · F-0686
Aug 22, 2023
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · F-0582
Aug 22, 2023
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. · F-0640
Aug 22, 2023
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
Aug 22, 2023
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645
Aug 22, 2023
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
Aug 22, 2023
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life. · F-0849
Aug 22, 2023
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · F-0925
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (4 → 3).
Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations:
10
Serious citations (G–L):
1
2024
All citations:
6
Serious citations (G–L):
2
2025
All citations:
3
Serious citations (G–L):
0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Year
Citations
Serious (G–L)
Worst severity that year
2023
10
1
G ▲
2024
6
2
K ▲
2025
3
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.
2 fines totaling $99,451, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.
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
Aug 8, 2024
Fine
$89,681
Aug 22, 2023
Fine
$9,770
Aug 22, 2023
Payment Denial
14 days from Sep 15, 2023
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityLouisiana averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility:
5.23
Louisiana average:
4.04
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
0.24
Louisiana average:
0.32
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
4.56
Louisiana average:
3.45
U.S. average:
3.50
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)
5.23
4.04
3.95
top 6% in Louisiana; top 10% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
0.24
0.32
0.69
bottom 41% in Louisiana; bottom 5% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
4.56
3.45
3.50
top 6% in Louisiana; top 11% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.12
0.20
0.48
bottom 36% in Louisiana; bottom 3% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
55.4
47.6
45.8
bottom 26% in Louisiana; bottom 24% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
—
41.6
42.9
—
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 4.52, RN 0.21, weekend 3.94.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.52 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
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.
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for River Oaks Retirement Manor. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
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.
Before you compare prices
Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 195502.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
The Care File
Visit checklist — River Oaks Retirement Manor
2500 E. Simcoe Street, Lafayette, LA 70501 · (337) 233-7115
Health inspection rating 2/5 · CMS overall 1/5· Fines (3y): $99,451
Most serious findings on record:
▲ Aug 8, 2024 (F-0700, Immediate jeopardy, pattern): The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly.
▲ Aug 8, 2024 (F-0835, Immediate jeopardy, pattern): The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents.
▲ Aug 22, 2023 (F-0689, Actual harm, isolated): The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Questions for the administrator:
☐ "What alternatives do you try before using bed rails, and how do you involve families in that decision?"
☐ "What were the findings behind this administration citation, and what has leadership changed since?"
☐ "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
☐ "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
☐ "Where do you post your daily staffing numbers, and can I see today's?"
☐ "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
☐ "Where do you post your latest state inspection results and the ombudsman's contact information?"
☐ "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
☐ "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
☐ "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
☐ "CMS reports 55% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
☐ "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
While you're there, notice:
☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)
Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 195502 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)