Core Of Bedford
514 E 16th St, Bedford, IN 47421 · Non profit - Corporation · 37 certified beds · (812) 279-2001 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 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 held steady at 2 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 | 18.4% | 11.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.2% | 5.5% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 4.5% | 0.4% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.8% | 1.1% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 25.2% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 0.8% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 19.4% | 11.9% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 43.4% | 23.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.9% | 95.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.9% | 3.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 16.7% | 23.3% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 21.9% | 13.6% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.48 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.74 | 1.44 | 1.80 | typical |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 37 beds and averages 33.0 residents a day — about 89% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 2.75 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.36 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.71 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 2.53 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.84 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.38 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 55% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2025-10-24 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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 a resident received the necessary interventions to prevent dislodgement of a gastrostomy tube (feeding tube) for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for feeding tubes. This deficient practice resulted in a hospitalization to remove the G-tube, sepsis, and cannot have a new G-tube placed for 6 weeks. (Resident B) Finding include: On 10/24/25 at 10:40 a.m., Resident B was observed to be sitting in a reclining wheelchair. A yellow nasogastric tube (a flexible tube inserted through the nose and down the throat into the stomach) was observed to have feeding infusing from a feeding pump. On 10/24/25 at 11:05 a.m., Resident B's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, cerebral infarction (stroke), hemiplegia (paralysis or weakness on one side of the body), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus infection. An Operative Report, dated 9/5/25 at 5:21 p.m., indicated 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 · E2026-03-19 · tag F0628 — patternProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate discharge information was provided for 5 of 5 residents reviewed for hospitalization. Information was not communicated to the receiving health care institution or provider, Notice of Transfer and Discharge was not provided, bed hold policies were not provided. (Resident 4, Resident 6, Resident 8, Resident 17, Resident 36)Findings include: 1. On 3/16/26 at 11:23 a.m., Resident 6's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnosis included, but was not limited to COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder). On 1/15/26 at 3:25 a.m., a progress note indicated the resident was sent and admitted to the hospital. The clinical record lacked the following information: - Documentation that a written notice of transfer and discharge was provided to the resident and resident representative. - Documentation that the bed-hold policy was provided to the resident and/or resident representative. - Documentation that the required information was conveyed to receiving facility upon transfer. 2. On 3/16/26 at 12:03 p.m.,…
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 · E2026-03-19 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
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 a clean, homelike environment in 3 of 4 resident shower/bathrooms used by 34 of 34 residents, and for 2 of 12 resident rooms reviewed for environmental concerns (Northeast Bathroom, Southwest Bathroom, Southeast Bathroom, room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER])Findings include:1. On 3/17/26 at 10:20 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., on 3/18/26 at 10:05 a.m. and 2:50 p.m., and on 3/19/26 at 11:20 a.m., gnats were observed flying around in the northeast resident bathroom. 2. On 3/17/26 at 9:50 a.m. and on 3/18/26 at 3:05 p.m., and black and brown substance was observed around the base of the toilet in the southwest resident bathroom. 3. On 3/17/26 at 9:55 a.m. and on 3/18/26 at 3:10 p.m., a gray fuzzy substance was observed on and in the ceiling vent, a black substance was observed around the base of the toilet, and the toilet was observed to be anchored at an angle towards the wall in the southeast resident bathroom. 4. On 3/16/26 at 11:16 a.m.…
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 before2026-03-19 · tag F0912 — isolatedProvide rooms that are at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and 100 square feet for single resident rooms.
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 provide at least 80 square feet (sq. ft.) per resident in multiple occupancy resident rooms. This was observed in 3 of 18 resident rooms in the facility (room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER]).Findings include: A review of the facility's Rooms Size Certification, received from the Administrator on 3/16/26 at 11:00 a.m., indicated the following:The floor areas of the following multiple resident rooms measured: room [ROOM NUMBER]: 2 beds, 153.19 sq. ft. 76.59 sq. ft. per resident, SNF/NF.room [ROOM NUMBER]: 2 beds 157.98 sq. ft. 78.99 sq. ft. per resident, SNF/NF. room [ROOM NUMBER]: 2 beds 152.97 sq. ft. 76.48 sq. ft. per resident, SNF/NF. room [ROOM NUMBER], 6, and 8, rooms with the variances, were observed on 3/16/26. The rooms were observed to have the following number of beds:room [ROOM NUMBER] - 2 bedsroom [ROOM NUMBER] - 2 bedsroom [ROOM NUMBER] - 2 bedsDuring an interview on 3/16/26 at 11:00 a.m., the…
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 · D2025-03-06 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's representative was notified of an assessed significant weight loss for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for notification of change. (Resident B) Findings include: On 3/6/25 at 11:25 a.m., Resident B's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnosis included, but was not limited to, dementia with behavior disturbance. A review of Resident B's weights indicated the following: - On 1/2/25, the resident weighed 156.8 pounds. - On 1/17/25, the resident weighed 157.1 pounds. - On 1/23/25, the resident weighed 144.2 pounds. - On 1/30/25, the resident weighed 146.2 pounds. - On 2/11/25, the resident weighed 137.4 pounds. - On 2/19/25, the resident weighed 127.9 pounds. There was an assessed significant weight loss of 18.59% from 1/17/25 to 2/19/25. The resident's progress notes indicated the following: - A Nutrition/Dietary note from 2/17/25 at 12:30 p.m., indicated Resident B had a significant change of 19.4 pounds and 12.4% weight loss over 30 days. The clinical record for Resident B lacked documentation of the…
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 · D2025-03-06 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a fall was documented for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident B) Findings include: On 3/6/25 at 11:25 a.m., Resident B's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnosis included, but was not limited to, dementia with behavior disturbance. The resident's nursing progress notes indicated the following: - On 2/8/25 at 1:47 p.m., new orders for X-ray of right ribs, right femur, right hip, total views of all X-rays. - On 2/8/25 at 2:45 p.m., follow-up day 2 of 3 awaiting X-rays of right ribs, right femur and right hip due to complaints of pain with movement. - On 2/9/25 at 7:20 a.m., nurse was notified by CNA's that resident was unable to straighten right leg, while assessing resident it was noted pain and discomfort while attempting to change and reposition resident. He was noted to have a recent fall on 2/6/25 and orders were obtained 2/8/25 for X-rays. - On 2/9/25 at 8:05 a.m., hospital ambulance arrived to transport resident to emergency room for evaluation and treatment. - On 2/9/25 at 11:15 a.m.,…
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 · E2025-02-20 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
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 food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 2 of 2 kitchen observations. Findings include: During an initial kitchen tour on 2/17/25 at 10:45 a.m., a large container containing opened bags of rice was observed without a lid in the dry storage area. During a follow-up visit on 2/20/25 at 12:01 p.m., the same rice container was observed uncovered in the dry storage area. During an interview at that time, the Dietary Manager indicated the container should have a lid since there were opened bags of rice in it. On 2/20/25 at 12:40 p.m., the Administrator provided a copy of the facility policy, Storage of Dry Food and Supplies, undated, and indicated it was the policy currently being used. A review of the policy indicated, . Use seamless or plastic containers with tight-fitting covers to store products . On 2/21/25 at 10:45 a.m., the Indiana State Department of Health, RETAIL FOOD ESTABLISHMENT SANITATION REQUIREMENTS. TITLE 410 IAC 7-24, dated 11/13/04, was…
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 · D2025-02-20 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 a resident's choice of code status was documented accurately for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for advanced directives. (Resident 12) Finding includes: On [DATE] at 2:37 p.m., Resident 12's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Alzheimer's disease and a history of transient ischemic attack (temporary blockage of blood flow to the brain, causing stroke like symptoms). The Advanced Directives, a choice of treatment document, dated [DATE], was signed by the Resident's POA (power of attorney), and indicated the resident was to be comfort measures only (No CPR to be performed). The Physician's Orders, dated [DATE], indicated resident had a current order for CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation). A Provider Note, dated [DATE], indicated the resident's advanced directive was DNR (do not resuscitate). A Provider Note, dated [DATE], indicated the resident's advanced directive was DNR. A Provider Note, dated [DATE],…
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 · D2025-02-20 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 an accurate assessment for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for resident assessment. (Resident 234) Finding includes: On 2/18/25 at 2:04 p.m., Resident 234's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but not limited to, schizoaffective disorder (condition that combines symptoms of schizophrenia and a mood disorder) and dementia. Notice of PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) Level II Outcome, dated 2/15/23, indicated, Final Determination By: Determination Date: 2/15/23, Level II Outcome: Long Term Approval without Specialized Services. A Significant Change MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 9/24/24, did not indicate the resident was a PASARR level II. During an interview with the MDS coordinator on 2/20/25 at 10:10 a.m., she indicated section A1500 on MDS assessment, dated 9/24/24, was marked no in error and indicated it should have been marked yes for PASARR Level II. She indicated they did not have a MDS assessment coding policy, they followed the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI)…
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 · D2025-02-20 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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 oxygen tubing was labeled with the date for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care. (Resident 1) Findings include: On 2/18/25 at 2:40 p.m., Resident 1 was observed sitting in his wheelchair outside his room with oxygen being administered via nasal cannula (N/C) at 4L (liters). There was no date observed on the N/C tubing. On 2/19/25 at 9:55 a.m., Resident 1 was observed sitting in his wheelchair in the dining room with oxygen being administered via N/C at 4L. There was no date observed on the N/C tubing. On 2/19/25 at 11:43 a.m., Resident 1 was observed sitting in his wheelchair in the dining room with oxygen being administered via N/C at 4L. There was no date observed on the N/C tubing. On 2/20/25 at 2:44 p.m., Resident 1 was observed sitting in his wheelchair inside his room with oxygen being administered via N/C at 4L. There was no date observed on the N/C tubing. On 2/20/25 at 10:42 a.m., Resident 1 was observed laying asleep in bed with oxygen being administered via N/C at 4L. There was no…
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 before2025-02-20 · tag F0912 — isolatedProvide rooms that are at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and 100 square feet for single resident rooms.
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 provide at least 80 square feet (sq. ft.) per resident in multiple occupancy resident rooms for 3 of 18 resident rooms in the facility. (room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER]). Findings include: Review of the facility's Rooms Size Certification, received from the Administrator on 2/17/25 at 12:50 p.m., indicated the following: The floor areas of the following multiple resident rooms measured: room [ROOM NUMBER]: 2 beds, 153.19 sq. ft., 76.59 sq. ft. per resident, SNF/NF. room [ROOM NUMBER]: 2 beds 157.98 sq. ft., 78.99 sq. ft. per resident, SNF/NF. room [ROOM NUMBER]: 2 beds 152.97 sq. ft., 76.48 sq. ft. per resident, SNF/NF. room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], and room [ROOM NUMBER], were observed on 2/19/25 at 2:00 p.m The rooms were observed to have the following number of beds two beds in each room. During an interview on 2/19/25 at 2:10 p.m., the facility Administrator indicated room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM…
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 · D2025-01-17 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate reconciliation and disposition of controlled substances for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for medication reconciliation. (Resident B) Findings include: During an interview on 1/17/25 at 9:45 a.m., the Administrator (ADM) indicated she was notified regarding missing pills for Resident B. The ADM's investigation singled out two nurses, the Director of Nursing (DON) and LPN 1, during the time the pills went missing. The facility never found the missing pills. On 1/17/24 at 9:50 a.m., Resident B's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, malignant neoplasm of the breast, history of malignant neoplasm of the brain, and low back pain. An 11/7/24 physician's order indicated the resident was ordered oxycodone (a controlled substance medication used to treat moderate to severe pain) 7.5-325 milligrams every 6 hours, as needed for pain. A review of the drug disposal form did not indicate the resident's oxycodone was disposed. A review of the controlled substance inventory count sheet…
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 before2024-04-26 · tag F0912 — isolatedProvide rooms that are at least 80 square feet per resident in multiple rooms and 100 square feet for single resident rooms.
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 provide at least 80 square feet (sq. ft.) per resident in multiple occupancy resident rooms for 3 of 18 resident rooms in the facility. (room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER]) Findings include: room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER], and room [ROOM NUMBER] were observed on 4/23/24 at 11:00 a.m. The rooms were observed to have the following number of beds: room [ROOM NUMBER] - 2 beds room [ROOM NUMBER] - 2 beds room [ROOM NUMBER] - 2 beds A review of the facility's Rooms Size Certification, received from the Administrator on 4/26/24 at 11:00 a.m., indicated the following: The floor areas of the following multiple resident rooms measured: room [ROOM NUMBER] - 2 beds, 153.19 sq. ft., 76.59 sq. ft. per resident, SNF/NF. room [ROOM NUMBER] - 2 beds 157.98 sq. ft., 78.99 sq. ft. per resident, SNF/NF. room [ROOM NUMBER] - 2 beds 152.97 sq. ft., 76.48 sq. ft. per resident, SNF/NF. During an interview on 4/26/24 at 11:15 a.m.,…
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 MAJOR HOSPITAL — 6 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 | 2 of 5 | 2.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.8 | -1.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 5 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLAXTON, RYAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/27/2025 |
| WHEELER, WHITNEY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/28/2023 |
| CORE OF BEDFORD INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/03/2025 |
| BRAZZELL, CHARLES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/23/2002 |
| JORDAN, SUSAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/23/2015 |
| NEESE, KEVIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/04/2024 |
| HORTON, FRANCES | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/06/2025 |
| BLUE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2020 |
| CORE AND ASSOCIATES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/01/2013 |
| FIRST HARRISON BANK | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2000 |
| HSC MEDICAL BILLING & CONSULTING LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2000 |
| RD DINING | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2024 |
| WILLIAMS BROS HEALTH CARE PHARMACY INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2008 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 13 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
7 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.
About 75% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself.
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 155388. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-19, 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.