Overall sentiment across the reviews for Landmark of Plaquemine Nursing Home and Rehabilitation is predominantly positive with consistent praise for cleanliness, many caring staff members, and strong rehabilitation services, but tempered by recurring concerns about meal quality, inconsistent staff responsiveness, and aging facilities.
Care quality and nursing: Many reviewers describe very good to excellent care. Numerous comments praise individual nurses and aides as kind, attentive, and professional; several reviewers singled out specific staff by name (Trisha, Leslie, Keper Stine, and the new DON Lea) as providing exceptional service. Therapy and rehab are repeatedly highlighted as strengths — reviewers mention effective therapy programs, respectful, goal-oriented therapists, and good post-surgical or post-ventilator care. However, there is a notable pattern of inconsistency: while many family members report attentive nursing and quick responses, other reviews report lazy, unresponsive, or dismissive nurses. Call-button responsiveness was a particular pain point in several negative reports (buttons not answered promptly or placed out of reach). This suggests variability by shift, department, or individual staff member rather than a uniform standard of care.
Staff, communication, and management: Staff interactions earn frequent positive remarks — front-desk hospitality, pleasant hall staff, helpful maintenance, and a generally welcoming, family-like atmosphere are recurring themes. The social worker and some administrative staff are praised for clear and caring communication. Several reviewers specifically note good communication about medical updates, medications being readily available, and staff proactively informing families. Conversely, a subset of reviewers raised concerns about management responsiveness: an administrator was described as not listening and some problems reportedly went unaddressed. There are also mixed reports about communication consistency; while many families felt well-informed, others experienced limited contact or felt dismissed when raising concerns.
Facilities and amenities: The facility is consistently described as very clean, odor-free, and well-maintained, with maintenance staff responsive to needs. Amenities such as a secured entrance, sign-in camera, chapel, on-site salon, and special events (e.g., a Mardi Gras Ball) contribute to a pleasant environment for visitors and residents. At the same time, several reviewers noted that the building feels dated, rooms are not modernized, and some areas feel institutional (one reviewer likened it to a psychiatric facility). Accessibility was raised by a few reviewers — lengthy walks from the entrance to certain rooms and issues for non-elevator users indicate potential mobility concerns for some residents or visitors.
Dining and nutrition: Meals elicited mixed to negative feedback overall. Some reviewers praised the food as delicious and excellent, but a substantial number reported poor-quality, thrown-together meals, cold food requiring microwaving, and failures to adhere to prescribed diets. Communication about special-diet needs and menu choices was described as inconsistent; for residents with dietary restrictions, this was a significant and recurring concern. Because nutrition is central to recovery, this area stands out as needing attention despite positive reports about other aspects of care.
Safety, accessibility, and family experience: Many families appreciated the secure entry system, helpful receptionists, and staff who facilitate visits. Several reviewers expressed gratitude that residents were well taken care of and close to home in some cases. However, family experience varied — distance and ability to visit were cited as limitations in some contexts, and when families raised concerns, a few felt dismissed. Overall, the environment is seen as welcoming and hospitable by most reviewers, with events and a community feel contributing positively to resident life.
Patterns and recommendations: The dominant pattern is one of a clean, friendly, therapy-focused facility with many standout staff members and good operational strengths (maintenance, security, amenities). The most frequent negative themes are inconsistent staff responsiveness (particularly with call buttons), mediocre to poor meal quality and dietary adherence, and an older physical plant in need of modernization or improved accessibility. Addressing these specific areas — reinforcing response protocols for call bells, improving dietary communication and food quality, and mitigating accessibility issues — would likely convert many of the mixed or negative comments into uniformly positive ones. Management can also build on the evident strengths by formalizing recognition and training for top-performing staff and ensuring more consistent communication standards across shifts.
In summary, Landmark of Plaquemine appears to provide strong, compassionate care for many residents, with excellent rehab services and a clean, welcoming environment, but prospective residents and families should be aware of mixed experiences related to meal service, occasional staff unresponsiveness, and the older facility layout. These are important factors to weigh alongside the many positive reports of diligent, caring staff and effective therapy programming.
