Retreat At The Stratford, The
2460 Glebe St, Carmel, IN 46032 · For profit - Corporation · 18 certified beds · (317) 733-9560 Medicare only — no Medicaid
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- 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
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 2025
- nursing-staff turnover (76%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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) | 4 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 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 fell from 5 to 4 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 with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.1% | 2.0% | better |
| 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 | 9.1% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.8% | 3.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.3% | 23.3% | 21.2% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.4% | 1.2% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 82.4% | 79.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.5% | 22.2% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.0% | 10.8% | 12.0% | typical |
‡ 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.
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.
50.4% 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 90 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 56.4% 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 55 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 1.06 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 97% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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 | 50.4%CMS range 42.6–58.5 | 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 | 10.7%CMS range 7.3–16.1 | 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 | 56.4% | 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 | 70.9% | 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 | 23.6% | 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 | 98.6% | 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 | 97.5% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.4% | 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 | 2.9% | 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 | 7.4%CMS range 3.8–12.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.04 | 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 18 beds and averages 11.0 residents a day — about 61% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 6.50 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.49 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.61 is at or above 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 6.05 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.68 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.56 to 1.32 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 76% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-12 · 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 the physician was notified of daily weight gains as ordered by the physician for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for notification of change. (Resident 3)Findings include:The clinical record for Resident 3 was reviewed on 2/10/26 at 11:11 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, mild persistent asthma with acute exacerbation, and shortness of breath.A care plan, dated 10/3/25, indicated Resident 3 was at risk for complications related to chronic kidney disease. An intervention indicated to monitor the weight and notify the physician of a significant weight change.A physician's order, dated 10/8/25, indicated to weigh the resident daily at 6:00 a.m. and to notify the physician if there was a weight gain of 2 pounds or more over night.Resident 3 had a recorded weight gain of 2 pounds or more on the following dates:On 1/4/26, the weight went to 161 pounds from 157 pounds on 1/3/26.On 1/6/26, the weight went to 162 pounds from…
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 · D2025-06-02 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
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 the interdisciplinary team (IDT) assessed to determine a resident was safe to self-administer medications for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for self-medication administration. (Resident D) Findings include: During an observation and interview, on 6/2/25 8:46 a.m., Resident D had a clear plastic medication cup, with pills, on her bedside table next to her meal tray. The resident indicated the staff left her medications in her room. She would take the pills. The clinical record for Resident D was reviewed on 6/2/25 at 10:29 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, a fracture of the lower end of the left humerus (upper arm bone) and cirrhosis of the liver. An assessment for self-administration of medication completed by the interdisciplinary team (IDT), a physician's order and a comprehensive care plan for the self-administration of medications was not located in the clinical record. During an observation and interview, on 6/2/25 at 8:52 a.m., LPN 1 indicated the resident's medications were on her…
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 · D2025-06-02 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
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 residents were free from verbal abuse and intimidation for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for abuse. (Resident B and C) The deficient practice was corrected on 5/25/25, prior to the start of the survey, and therefore was past noncompliance. Findings include: 1. During an interview, on 6/2/25 at 8:56 a.m., Resident B indicated a staff member had been cross and impatient. She was unable to give the staff member's name (CNA 3). Resident B indicated she had slid down in her bed and CNA 3 accused her of doing it on purpose. She indicated she did not like the accusation. 2. During an interview, on 6/2/25 at 9:00 a.m., Resident C indicated CNA 3 had been verbally rude to her and she filed a complaint. Her remote control had fallen between the wall and the bed. The bed needed to be moved to get the remote. CNA 3 threw her hands up and looked at me like I was crazy and said she don't move beds. Resident C indicated she then asked for some milk. CNA 3 went and got the milk, returned, opened the milk, slammed it down,…
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 · D2025-03-07 · 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 the physician was notified of the residents' advanced directives and an order was documented in the residents' medical record for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for advanced directives. (Resident 8, 63 and 68) Findings include: 1. The clinical record for Resident 8 was reviewed on 3/4/25 at 9:51 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, hypertension, senile degeneration of the brain, and muscle weakness. An Indiana Physicians Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST) form was completed and signed on 11/12/24 and indicated the resident wished to be a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A physician's order, dated 3/4/25, indicated the resident was a DNR. The physician's order was not in place until 3.5 months after the resident was admitted to the facility. 2. The clinical record for Resident 63 was reviewed on 3/4/25 at 2:04 p.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, heart failure, stage 3…
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 · D2025-03-07 · 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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure person-centered comprehensive care plan interventions were developed for a resident who had a significant weight loss for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for nutrition. (Resident 6) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 6 was reviewed on 3/4/25 at 12:52 p.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, heart failure, vitamin deficiency, dysphagia, and anorexia. A physician's order, dated 5/1/23, indicated the resident was to be weighed monthly. A vitals tab indicated the following: On 1/1/25, the resident weighed 107.12 pounds. On 2/1/25, the resident weighed 101 pounds. On 2/10/25, the resident weighed 96 pounds. Resident 6 had a significant weight loss of 5.7% in 30 days and then continued to lose more weight on 2/10/25. A Registered Dietician (RD) note, dated 2/18/25, indicated the resident triggered for a significant weight loss. The current body weight was 96 pounds and recommended Ensure Plus (nutritional supplement) twice per day to help with weight stability. A current care plan, effective 4/6/23,…
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 before2025-03-07 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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 assess and document skin issues for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for quality of care. (Resident 5) Findings include: During an observation, on 3/3/25 at 10:15 a.m., Resident 5 was noted to have multiple bruises on both her arms. The clinical record for Resident 5 was reviewed on 3/4/25 at 11:10 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and a history of a stroke. A care plan, initiated on 4/17/24, indicated the resident was at risk for skin alterations and to perform and record complete skin assessments. A physician's order, initiated on 4/18/24, indicated to give aspirin (a medication used to prevent platelets from sticking together and causing clots) 81 milligrams once a day. The only documented bruise found in Resident 5's record was an area on the right lateral elbow. No other skin concerns had been found in the record. During an interview, on 3/3/25 at 10:36 a.m., LPN 2 indicated the resident had lots of bruises. During an interview, on 3/7/25 at…
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 · D2025-03-07 · 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 narcotic count sheets were signed off by the on-coming and off-going nurses to ensure an accurate reconciliation was completed for 1 of 1 narcotic book reviewed for reconciliation. Findings include: During an observation, on 3/3/25 at 5:27 a.m., with RN 1 in attendance, the narcotic book was found to be missing entries to show the on-coming and off-going nurses had reconciled the narcotic count and signed the narcotic book to indicate the count had been reviewed. During an interview, on 3/3/25 at 5:27 a.m., RN 1 indicated staff were supposed to sign the narcotic count sheets each shift. A facility document, titled Narcotic Count January 2025 Skilled, was provided by the Director of Nursing on 3/3/25 at 5:29 a.m., and indicated the following: On 1/4/25, there were no signatures for the on-coming and off-going day and evening shifts. On 1/5/25, there were no signatures for the on-coming and off-going day and evening shifts. On 1/11/25, there was no signature for the off-going evening shift. On 1/12/25,…
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 · D2025-03-07 · 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 medications were stored in their original packaging, failed to label an open vial with a date, and failed to monitor and document medication refrigerator temperatures for 1 of 1 medication cart and 1 of 1 medication refrigerator reviewed for medication storage. Findings include: 1. During an observation of medication storage, on 3/3/25 at 5:21 a.m., with RN 1 in attendance, the following pills were found outside of their packaging and loose in the cart: One round white oval tablet with imprint C-2. Three small round white tablets. Three oval white tables. One medium round white tablet and one rectangular white tablet. During an interview, on 3/3/25 at 5:21 a.m., RN 1 indicated another nurse last cleaned the cart. 2. During an observation of the medication refrigerator, on 3/3/25 at 5:30 a.m., with RN 1 in attendance, a bottle of Aplisol (tuberculosis testing serum) was found opened and without an open date. During the observation the medication refrigerator temperature logs were reviewed. 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 · D2025-03-07 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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 a recipe was available and followed for puree foods to ensure nutritive value and flavor was conserved for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for a pureed diet. (Resident 1 and 4) Findings include: During a continuous observation, on 3/4/25 at 10:34 a.m., Dietary Manager (DM) 5 was pureeing tuna melt sandwiches for the residents who required a puree diet. As she was pureeing the sandwich, there was no recipe out and she was using an unmeasured amount of cold milk to thin the food out. During an interview, on 3/4/25 at 10:44 a.m., DM 5 indicated they did not have recipes for how to puree food. They did not have recipes for portion sizes or for what thickeners and thinners to use for each meal. They thinned the meal with the appropriate liquids, and they trained staff in orientation about what liquids to use. During an interview, on 3/4/25 at 11:01 a.m., DM 5 indicated she was not sure how someone would know what liquids to use for the puree if someone had to fill in for absent staff members. They trained staff…
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 · F2024-04-05 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure 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 distributed under safe sanitary conditions for 14 of 14 residents who resided in the nursing home area of the facility. Findings include: During the lunch meal service observation on 4/3/24 from 11:54 a.m. to 12:38 p.m., the following concerns were identified: a. At 11:58 a.m., three meal trays were placed in the food service cart. During an interview on 4/3/24 at 11:59 a.m., [NAME] 3 indicated she had not taken the temperatures of the food prior to placing the three trays in the meal service cart. She was aware the temperature of all foods should be taken prior to placing any meal in the food service cart. b. At 12:03 p.m., [NAME] 3 was taking the temperatures of the food items on the steam table. She dropped the wrapper off of the alcohol wipe on the floor. She bent over an picked the wrapper up with her gloved hands. With the same soiled gloved hands, she continued to take temperatures of the food the steam table. c. At 12:19 p.m., [NAME] 3 was serving meals using her gloved hands to serve…
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 before2024-04-05 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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 ordered wound treatments were completed as ordered for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for wound treatment (Resident B). Findings include: Resident B's closed clinical record was reviewed on 4/02/24 at 12:02 p.m. Discharge diagnoses included, chronic atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and pacemaker placement. The resident had a 12/22/23 care plan need regarding the placement of a cardiac pacemaker. Review of the resident's Clinical Notes indicated the following: 12/22/23- The resident was admitted to the facility following the placement of a pacemaker. 12/28/23-The resident was admitted after a recent pacemaker implantation. The resident had an incision on her left upper chest. No redness was present at the wound site. 1/2/24-The resident returned from a follow-up visit with the cardiologist. The resident had a new order to clean incision daily with soap and water, no lotions, creams or powders to the incision site. Review of the Clinical Notes indicated the entries were identical on four days, and included the same typo…
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 · D2024-04-05 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
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 ongoing communication for continuation of care with the dialysis center for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis services (Resident 6) Findings include: During an interview on 4/02/24 at 1:54 p.m., Resident 6 was sitting in bed in her room watching TV. She indicated she went to dialysis and had a port to her left chest. Resident 6's clinical record was reviewed on 4/2/24 at 3:18 p.m. Current diagnoses included end stage renal disease (ESRD), dependence on dialysis, and congestive heart failure. The resident had a current April 2024 order for dialysis. The resident had a current care plan problem/need regarding a diagnosis of ESRD and receiving hemodialysis. The goal for this problem was Fluid balance will be maintained and resident will have no complications with hemodialysis through the next review. Approaches/interventions included: Interventions: monitor for complications from dialysis such as: hypoglycemia, hypotension, irritation to access site, and muscle cramps and Dialysis is at ( dialysis…
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. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-06-27 for 6 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES — 9 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 | 4 of 5 | 4.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 4.1 | ≈ chain avg |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 4.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.6★, 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| THOMPSON, BENJAMIN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 25% | since 01/01/2021 |
| THOMPSON, DONALD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 09/17/2010 |
| THOMPSON, JOSHUA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 25% | since 01/01/2021 |
| MAXWELL GROUP, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2025 |
| MILLER, BRADLEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/02/2026 |
| SOLITO, LEO | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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 $894K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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.
What families pay in IN
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Indiana Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 155794. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-12, 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.