LouisianaGreensburg

St. Helena Parish Nursing Home

32 North 2nd Street, Greensburg, LA 70441 · St. Helena County · 72 certified beds · avg 60 residents/day · certified since Oct 22, 2004

Abuse citation flag (CMS)

The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
6
Serious findings on record
$319,733
Fines, last 3 years
5.06
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5

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 self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, facility-wide · Aug 28, 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 (L): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation existed throughout the facility. The single most serious citation CMS can issue.

Corrected: Oct 1, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, facility-wide · Feb 29, 2024 · F-0835

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 (L): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation existed throughout the facility. The single most serious citation CMS can issue.

Corrected: Mar 29, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, facility-wide · Feb 29, 2024 · F-0919

The facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.

Why it matters: A resident who falls or needs help in a bathroom without a working call button may be stranded and unable to summon aid.

Severity (L): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation existed throughout the facility. The single most serious citation CMS can issue.

Corrected: Mar 29, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, repeated · Feb 29, 2024 · 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 (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.

Corrected: Mar 29, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, repeated · May 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 (H): Multiple residents were actually harmed by the same failure — a pattern of real harm, not an isolated incident.

Corrected: May 20, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Feb 29, 2024 · F-0676 · triggered by a complaint

The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have.

Why it matters: A resident can needlessly lose independence that proper daily support would have preserved.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Mar 29, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (32)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
May 6, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records.
May 6, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
May 6, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Feb 19, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
Oct 1, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · from a complaint
Oct 1, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Aug 28, 2025▲ L · Immediate jeopardy, facility-wideThe 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
Aug 28, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Aug 28, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
Aug 28, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Aug 28, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not give all staff the required training on its quality improvement program — the internal system for finding problems and making care better. · from a complaint
Aug 28, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · from a complaint
May 1, 2025▲ H · Actual harm, repeatedThe 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
May 1, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
May 1, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint
Apr 9, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies.
Apr 9, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way.
Apr 9, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Apr 9, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 9, 2025C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe 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.
Apr 9, 2025C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe 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.
Feb 29, 2024▲ L · Immediate jeopardy, facility-wideThe facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents.
Feb 29, 2024▲ L · Immediate jeopardy, facility-wideThe facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
Feb 29, 2024▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Feb 29, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · from a complaint
Feb 29, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 29, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Feb 29, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · from a complaint
Feb 29, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Feb 29, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 29, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 29, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 3).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2024114L ▲
2025172L ▲
202640F

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.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

3 fines totaling $319,733, plus 2 Medicare payment denial periods.

DateTypeAmount / length
Aug 28, 2025Fine$214,871
Aug 28, 2025Payment Denial1 days from Oct 2, 2025
Apr 9, 2025Fine$77,838
Apr 9, 2025Payment Denial6 days from May 29, 2025
Feb 29, 2024Fine$27,024

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityLouisiana avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)5.064.043.95top 9% in Louisiana; top 12% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.300.320.69top 40% in Louisiana; bottom 10% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.973.453.50top 18% in Louisiana; top 24% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.170.200.48top 36% in Louisiana; bottom 7% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)0.047.645.8
RN turnover (%)0.041.642.9

Hours are per resident per day, 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 4.98, RN 0.30, weekend 3.91. Staffing rating: 2/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

Government - Hospital district

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Awan, NaveedIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2012
Birch, SharonIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE09/06/2012
Landry, JoelIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/28/2015
St Helena Parish HospitalOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/13/1984

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
The Lodge at Tangi Pines10.2 miAmite, LA★★★☆☆3/5
Golden Age Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center18.3 miDenham Springs, LA★☆☆☆☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 2 closest →

All facilities in Greensburg →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 195610.