Countryside Manor Health & Living Community
205 Marine Dr, Anderson, IN 46016 · For profit - Corporation · 109 certified beds · (765) 649-4558 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- about 31% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 13.7% | 11.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.7% | 5.5% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.4% | 1.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 11.8% | 25.2% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.8% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.1% | 11.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 27.9% | 23.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.2% | 95.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.0% | 3.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.8% | 23.3% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.4% | 13.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.3% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 69.6% | 79.0% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 12.9% | 22.2% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.3% | 10.8% | 12.0% | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
56.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 109 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 66.7% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 30 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.52 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 82% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 20% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 56.8%CMS range 48.3–66.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.5%CMS range 7.6–16.3 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 66.7% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 53.3% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 66.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 5.3% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.7%CMS range 4.0–11.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.21 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 109 beds and averages 83.5 residents a day — about 77% occupied, or roughly 26 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.28 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.46 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.13 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.86 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.45 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.56 to 0.23 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 42% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-23 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notices (SFN ABN) were provided to residents and/or resident representatives at the end of Medicare A covered services and failed to ensure the forms were completed appropriately when provided to residents and/or resident representatives for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for Beneficiary Notice. (Residents 104 and 41) The deficient practice was corrected on 2/9/26, prior to the start of survey, and was therefore past noncompliance. Findings include: On 2/20/26 at 11:11 a.m., the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Beneficiary Protection Notification Review Forms were reviewed, and indicated the following:1.Resident 104 was admitted to Medicare Part A Skilled Services on 7/10/25. The last covered day of Part A services was 8/4/25. The SNF Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) was reviewed with the resident's representative by phone on 8/1/25. The NOMNC indicated the resident had exhausted their Medicare A benefits.The clinical record lacked the SNF ABN.A 8/1/25, progress note…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-23 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure insulin (a medication to treat diabetes mellitus) pens were labeled with resident identifiers, dated when opened, and disposed of when expired for 2 of 5 carts reviewed for medication storage. (300 south cart and 300 short cart)Findings include:1.During a medication storage observation, on 2/19/26 at 9:59 a.m., of the 300-hall south cart, accompanied by the Unit Manager, the following was observed:One open Lantus (long-acting) insulin pen dated 1/17/26; the pen had approximately 80 units remaining.One open Novolog (rapid-acting) insulin pen dated 1/10/26; the pen had approximately 175 units remaining.During an interview at the time of the observation, the Unit Manager indicated that insulin was good for 30 days and all expired insulin needed to be disposed of properly. The Unit Manager confirmed the open insulin pens had expired. She indicated only two residents received insulin from this medication cart.2.During a medication storage observation, on 2/19/26 at 10:18 a.m., of the 300-hall short cart, accompanied by QMA…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-04-11 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed resident care plan interventions and facility protocol while utilizing a mechanical lift during a transfer of a dependent resident for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident B) Findings include: Resident B's clinical record was reviewed on 4/11/25 at 10:40 a.m. Diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebrovascular disease affecting right dominant side, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, dysphagia, and chronic kidney disease. The most current Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 3/18/25, indicated the resident was depended for toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self, upper body dressing, lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear, chair/bed-to-chair transfer, and tub/shower transfer. A current care plan titled CNA Assignment Sheet Resident has specific needs related to their care, dated 11/09/22, had an intervention dated 11/09/22, of the resident is assisted with two person…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-03 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure completion of wound care treatment as ordered to promote healing of a pressure injury for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure injuries. (Resident 63) Finding Includes: Resident 63's clinical record was reviewed on 12/30/24 at 11:04 a.m. Diagnoses included an unspecified fracture of lower end of right femur, unspecified disorder of the skin and subcutaneous tissue, and end stage renal disease. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/8/24, indicated the resident did not have any pressure injuries, was occasionally incontinent of bowel and bladder, required partial staff assistance for bed mobility, and did not transfer to utilize the toilet. A current care plan, dated 11/13/24, indicated Resident 63 was at risk for skin breakdown. Interventions included to assist with bed mobility (11/23/24), turn and reposition per resident's needs (11/13/24), and monitor skin for signs of breakdown (11/13/24). The clinical record…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-01-03 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow infection prevention and control procedures related to contact isolation (additional precautions used when standard precautions may not be enough to stop the spread of infection) precautions for 2 of 3 resident reviewed for transmission-based precautions. (Resident 61 and 227) Finding includes: 1. During an observation, on 12/27/24 at 2:09 p.m., Resident 227 was lying in bed and indicated she had been in the facility for roughly five days. She was going to the gym for therapy. On the door to Resident 227's room was an orange Contact Precautions sign, and three (3) signs with directions on putting on and taking off personal protective equipment (PPE). The PPE was hanging on the door inside plastic dividers. The dividers contained gowns, gloves, face masks, and face shields. During an observation, on 12/30/24 at 2:19 p.m., Resident 227 was being propelled in her wheelchair down the hallway towards her room, by PTA 4. PTA 4 and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-11 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of misappropriation of resident property for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for misappropriation. (Resident B) Finding includes: Review of a facility investigation, on 9/9/24 at 3:20 p.m., indicated a statement signed on 8/2/24 by the Regional Marketing Consultant of a conversation held with the resident B's Family Member 2. It indicated Family Member 2 reported money was stolen from a plastic envelope out of the resident's purse in her nightstand. The statement lacked information regarding when it was identified missing, to whom it was reported, and who reported it missing prior to 8/2/24. The statement was not signed by Family Member 2. Five staff Abuse Allegation Questionnaires were included, but were not completed by direct staff members who were on duty when the alleged theft was reported. The investigation lacked how much money was reported missing, names or statements from staff who received the initial alleged…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-24 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an incident of a resident leaving the facility and the facility being unsure of her whereabouts for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for an unusual occurrence. (Resident C) Findings include: Resident C's clinical record was reviewed on 6/24/24 at 10:27 a.m. Diagnoses included unspecified severe protein-calorie malnutrition, adult failure to thrive, difficulty in walking, type II diabetes mellitus without complications, history of falling, attention and concentration deficit following other cerebrovascular disease, and other speech and language deficits following other cerebrovascular disease. Orders included insulin lispro (short acting) insulin per sliding scale three times daily, metformin (treat diabetes) 750 mg twice daily, mirtazapine (treat depression) 7.5 mg daily, acetaminophen (treat pain) 1000 mg three times daily, and cleanse coccyx wound with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply Medihoney (for wound healing) to wound bed and cover with a foam…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-24 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication carts were kept locked when unattended, and failed to ensure proper labeling of medications for 2 of 3 carts observed for medication storage on the 200 Hall. Findings included: On 6/24/24 at 3:12 p.m., the two medication carts on the Southeast 2 unit were observed to be unlocked and unattended by staff. Residents were observed in the hallways and in the lounge area at this time. During an interview on 6/24/24 at 3:17 p.m., RN 1 indicated the nurse (LPN 2) responsible for the medication cart had stepped off the unit. She indicated the nurse also had the keys for the 2nd (overflow) medication cart. The overflow medication cart contained oral pills. The top drawer contained oral pills (identified as 19 melatonin (supplement for sleep) and 8 potassium chloride 10 meq) without resident indicators. RN 1 indicated she did not know why theses medications were not in a box with a resident's name or identifiers. During an interview on 6/24/24 at 3:22 p.m., LPN 2 she would normally lock the medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-12-04 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to resolve resident council concerns related to call lights being turned off prior to assistance and long call light wait times. (Residents 2, 9, 10, 16, 20, 38, 49, 54 and 73) Findings include: During the Resident Council meeting on 11/29/23 at 2:35 p.m., Residents 2, 9, 10, 16, 20, 38, 49, 54 and 73 indicated the wait for call lights to be answered was long, and staff would turn off the call light without completing care. During an interview on 11/27/23 at 10:58 a.m., Resident 67 indicated the call light wait time ranged from 1 to 2 hours, with the average being around an hour. During review of the resident council minutes, on 11/28/23 at 9:57 a.m., the following was observed: The 8/23/23 minutes indicated residents were concerned about the call light issues not being addressed, and the resident council meeting was the only place to voice a grievance. The record lacked a facility follow-up. The 9/25/23 minutes indicated residents were concerned about staff turning call lights off prior to providing care and long call light…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-12-04 · tag F0582 — patternGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide notification of Medicare non-coverage for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for beneficiary protection notifications. (Resident 68, 185, and 71) Findings include: On 11/28/23 at 2:25 p.m., the SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility) Beneficiary Protection Notification Review Forms were reviewed, and indicated the following: 1. Resident 68 had admitted to the facility on [DATE] under Medicare Part A Skilled Services. The last covered day of Part A Services was 8/5/23. The resident remained in the facility. The clinical record lacked both Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNF ABN) and the Notice of Medicare Non-coverage (NOMNC) notices. 2. Resident 185 had admitted to the facility on [DATE] under Medicare Part A Skilled Services. The last covered day of Part A Services was 10/12/23. The resident discharged home on [DATE]. The clinical record lacked a NOMNC notice. 3. Resident 71 had admitted to the facility on [DATE] under…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-12-04 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to educate resident council members on the facility grievance process. (Residents 9, 16, 20, 38, 54, and 73) Findings include: During the Resident Council meeting on 11/29/23 at 2:30 p.m., residents 9, 16, 20, 38, 54, and 73 indicated they did not know the grievance process or how to file a grievance. During a record review on 11/28/23 at 9:57 a.m., the resident council binder lacked a record of grievances filed. During an interview on 11/30/23 at 9:25 a.m., the Administrator indicated there were no grievances from the resident council meetings and the Social Services Director (SSD) was the facility's grievance designee. During an interview on 12/1/23 at 2:03 p.m., the SSD indicated she has not received grievance forms from the resident council meetings, as Resident Council concerns were handled during the meetings. During an interview on 12/4/23 at 10:56 a.m., the Activities Director (AD) indicated she utilized the Resident/Family Concern/Grievance Form, when resident council members present concerns during the meeting. She…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-12-04 · tag F0636 — patternAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive assessments were completed per the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) specified timeline. (Resident 63, 38, 47, 79 and 287) Findings include: 1. Resident 63's clinical record was reviewed on 11/28/23 at 2:10 p.m. Current diagnosis included acute renal failure, aphasia, and dysphagia. The resident had a 10/17/23 significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS). The assessment was signed by the MDS Coordinator on 11/08/23 (22 days after the assessment date). This resulted in the assessment being signed eight days late. During an interview on 12/4/23 at 10:57 a.m., the MDS Coordinator indicated Resident 63's MDS was signed late due to the lack of an MDS assistant during that time period and the inability to complete all tasks in a timely manner. 2. Resident 38's clinical record was reviewed on 11/28/23 at 2:14 p.m. Current diagnosis included end stage renal disease, complete traumatic amputation of left lower leg, and diabetes mellitus. The resident was readmitted to the facility 9/25/23. The resident had a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-04 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure narcotics were reconciled per facility policy for 2 of 3 medication carts reviewed for medication storage. (41 South cart and 41 North cart) Findings include: 1. During a medication storage observation of the 41 South cart, accompanied by LPN 6 on 12/4/23 at 11:10 a.m., the Nurse's Narcotic Sign In/Out Sheet record was reviewed and the following dates lacked shift to shift reconciliation of controlled medications: In November 2023- 11/2 on day and evening shifts, 11/3 on day shift, 11/4 on night shift, 11/8 on day and night shifts, 11/13 on night shift, 11/15 on day and evening shifts, 11/16 on day and evening shifts, 11/18 on evening and night shifts, 11/19 on day shift, and 11/30 on day shift. 2. During a review of the 41 North cart, Nurse's Narcotic Sign In/Out Sheet record, provided by the DON on 12/4/23 at 12:10 p.m., the following dates lacked shift to shift reconciliation of controlled medications: In November 2023- 11/1 on day shift, 11/4 on all three shifts, 11/5 on day shift, 11/10 on day…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-12-04 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to appropriately label medications brought in to the facility by the resident or resident family and stored in the medication cart in 1 of 3 medication carts. (34 South Hall medication cart) Findings include: On 12/4/23 at 11:30 a.m., during observation of the 34 South Hall medication cart, accompanied by LPN 5, the following was observed: a. Four bottles of Omega XL 300 mg (milligram) (dietary supplement), lacked a resident name or pharmacy label. b. On bottle of D3 5000 units (vitamin supplement), lacked a resident name or pharmacy label. c. Sleep XL (dietary supplement), lacked a resident name or pharmacy label. During an interview at the time of observation, LPN 5 indicated there was no resident name or prescribing information on the bottles. Review of current, undated facility policy titled, Medication Labeling, provided by the Nurse Consultant on 12/4/23 at 12:34 p.m., indicated the following: .Procedure .8. Over the counter medications used for a specific resident must identify that resident and have an appropriate…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CARDON & ASSOCIATES — 19 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
The other 18 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.7★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 01/01/2011 |
| GERMAN AMERICAN BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/17/2025 |
| BALLA, MATTHEW | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/23/2022 |
| CATTELL, ZACHARY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/25/2022 |
| ESTEP, KENNETH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/23/2024 |
| FAUTH, KENDRA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/26/2021 |
| GORMAL, GREGG | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2016 |
| HAUG, AMY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/04/2022 |
| HYATT, DAVID | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/27/2023 |
| LOPOSSA, LYNN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/17/2023 |
| MCCLELLAND, THOMAS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/26/2021 |
| SPENCER, LEAANN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/18/2018 |
| FRIEND, JAYNA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2021 |
| CARDON AND ASSOCIATES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/13/2025 |
| CARDON MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/13/2025 |
| MOORE OPERATING GROUP INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/18/2020 |
| HASHMI, SYED | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/17/2020 |
| INGRAM, STEPHANIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2021 |
| MCINTOSH, ERIC | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/31/2021 |
| TRENNEPOHL, WHITNEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/04/2019 |
| HEADLEY, KATHY | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/03/2025 |
| MOORE, DANIEL | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/03/2025 |
| MOORE, DAVID | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/03/2025 |
| MOORE, STEPHEN | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/03/2025 |
| ANKURA CONSULTING GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/15/2022 |
| BRADLEY & ASSOCIATES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| COLE MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2015 |
| COUNTRYSIDE CHERISH PROPERTY, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/22/2007 |
| FORVIS MAZARS LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| HEALTHDRIVE PODIATRY GROUP PA | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/07/2019 |
| HEART OF CARDON LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/06/2007 |
| ISD RENAL INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/16/2021 |
| JEFFREY L MORER OD PC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/07/2019 |
| LACY BEYL & COMPANY INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/15/2015 |
| LIFESPAN THERAPY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/25/2007 |
| MED-PASS INCORPORATED | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2020 |
| MOBILE AUDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES PC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/07/2019 |
| MOSER CONSULTING INCORPORATED | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2020 |
| PROACTIVE CLINICAL PARTNERS | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| RESPIRATORY PARTNERS INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2019 |
| THIRD EYE HEALTH INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/04/2022 |
| VOX GLOBAL LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/28/2019 |
| MCCLARNON, DANIELLE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 70 rows in the source record cover these 43 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
23 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 31% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in IN
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Indiana Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 155258. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-23, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.