Waters Of Chesterfield Skilled Nursing Facility
524 Anderson Rd, Chesterfield, IN 46017 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 60 certified beds · (765) 378-0213 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- 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
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 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 |
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 3 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 whose need for help with daily activities increased | 2.0% | 11.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.8% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 1.5% | 1.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 25.6% | 25.2% | 6.5% | typical for the 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 | 0.7% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.3% | 11.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.0% | 23.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.2% | 3.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.4% | 23.3% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.2% | 13.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 79.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.90 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.92 | 1.44 | 1.80 | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 40% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.3%CMS range 6.4–15.2 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.08 | 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 60 beds and averages 42.6 residents a day — about 71% occupied, or roughly 17 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 3.35 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.35 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.82 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 2.92 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.53 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.41 to 0.19 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%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-30 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide 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 provide residents and/or their representatives with written notice of transfer/discharge and bed hold policy for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for hospitalizations. (Residents 2, 30, and 46) Findings include: 1.Resident 2's clinical record was reviewed on 3/25/26 at 2:17 p.m. Diagnoses included unspecified heart failure, oropharyngeal dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD).A 2/24/26, quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired and utilized a feeding tube.A 11/7/25, discharge MDS assessment indicated the resident discharged with a return anticipated. A 11/7/25, nursing progress note indicated Resident 2's blood sugar was checked and read as high. The on-call physician was contacted and provided an order to send the resident to the emergency room for evaluation and treatment.A 11/7/25, online eInteract Change in Condition assessment indicated the resident had high blood sugar and the on-call physician provided an order to send 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 · D2026-03-30 · 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
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to follow enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) during medication administration for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for tube feedings. (Resident 2)Findings include:Resident 2's clinical record was reviewed on 3/25/26 at 2:17 p.m. Diagnoses included unspecified heart failure, oropharyngeal dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD).Current orders include the following: EBP related to PEG (gastrostomy) tube for infection prevention (1/14/26).A 2/24/26, quarterly, Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired and utilized a feeding tube.A 2/12/26, EBP care plan indicated for staff to follow the EBP guidelines when providing care and coming into direct contact with potentially infected materials or devices. Direct care activities include device use such as feeding tubes. Interventions included reinforcing proper handwashing and following personal equipment protocols (2/12/26) and set up isolation per facility protocol, following EBP guidelines…
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 · D2025-05-30 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to make prompt efforts to resolve a grievance for a resident requesting a vegetarian diet for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for concerns related to specialized diet (Resident B). Findings include: Resident B's clinical record was reviewed on 5/30/25 at 11:00 a.m. Current diagnoses included hypothyroidism, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, and hypertension. The resident was admitted to the facility in February 2025. The resident had a 2/25/25 physician's order for a general diet-regular textured- vegetarian diet (revised 3/12/25). An Admission/re-admission Assessment, opened on 2/24/25 and locked on 2/27/25, indicated the resident required a regular vegetarian diet. A 3/1/25, quarterly, Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment indicated the resident was cognitively intact. A 5/22/25 quarterly dietary assessment, completed by the Registered Dietician, contained no dietary pretences nor mention of the resident's desire for a vegetarian diet. The clinical record lacked a formalized care plan to address a dietary preference for…
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 · F2025-01-13 · 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 prepared and served under safe and sanitary conditions. This deficient practice had the potential to impact 39 of 39 facility residents. Finding include: During a lunch meal service observation on 1/9/25 from 12:00 p.m. to 12:40 p.m. the following concerns regarding food handling, food distribution, hand washing, glove use, and prevention of cross contamination were made: The Acting Dietary Manager (ADM) was wearing gloves on both hands. He began meal services, touching meal tickets, meal trays, bowls, counter tops, lids, utensils, napkin wrapped silverware, and the food contact surface of plates with his gloved hands. He picked up cooked chicken nuggets/boneless chicken wings with his contaminated gloves and placed the chicken on meal plates. At 12:04 p.m., he left the kitchen through the rear door by the refrigerators and freezers. He touched the door handle with his gloved hands. He returned carrying dinner rolls in bags. With his soiled gloved hands, he touched the bag of the dinner rolls.…
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 · D2025-01-13 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
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 develop and provide a menu to encourage intake and promote dignity for residents who received a pureed diet for 3 of 3 residents who received pureed diets. (Residents 1, 16, and 7) Findings include: A current Facility menu, item and portion size guide (spread sheets) for lunch on Thursday 1/9/25 indicated the following meals were menued to be served: Regular Diet: BBQ chicken wings, herb roasted potatoes, broccoli florets, chilled peaches, and a dinner roll. The Pureed Diet was menued to receive all of the above items in pureed form. During a lunch meal observation on 1/9/25 from 12:00 p.m. to 12:36 p.m., the following food items were served: Regular diet trays were served breaded chicken nuggets/boneless chicken wings with a side of BBQ sauce, steamed broccoli florets, roasted herbed potatoes, and pudding as a substitute for peaches. During an interview on 1/9/25 at 12:25 p.m., the Acting Dietary Manager (ADM) indicated pudding was 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 · D2025-01-13 · 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 provide the appropriate 48-hour notification of Medicare A Non-coverage for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for Beneficiary Notifications. (Residents 37 & 38) Findings include: On 1/8/25 at 1:23 p.m., the SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility) Beneficiary Protection Notification Review Forms were reviewed for Residents 37 and 38, and indicated the following: 1. Resident 37 was admitted to Medicare Part A Skilled Services on 7/24/24. The last covered day of Part A services was 9/10/24. The Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage (SNF ABN) and SNF Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NONMC) were reviewed with the resident's representative and signed on 9/10/24. A 9/9/24, Detailed Explanation of Non-coverage form indicated Resident 37 had reached the maximized functional potential for physical and speech therapy. 2. Resident 38 was admitted to Medicare Part A Skilled Services on 8/13/24. The last covered day of Part A services was 9/11/24. The SNF ABN and SNF NONMC were reviewed with the resident's representative…
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 · D2025-01-13 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the physician as ordered for changes in daily weights for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for weight loss/gain. (Resident 5) Finding includes: Resident 5's record was reviewed on 1/9/25 at 2:24 p.m. Diagnoses included heart failure, hypertension, and unspecified edema. Physician's orders included, but were not limited to, a. Monitor 1600 millimeter (mL) fluid restriction daily, 360 mL per meal. The order was dated 11/21/24. b. Take daily weight and notify the physician for an increase of 3 pounds (lbs) in 24 hours or an increase of 5 lbs in 7 days. The order was dated 11/22/24. c. Give one torsemide (a diuretic) 40 milligrams (mg) tablet twice daily for edema. The order was dated 11/29/24. Review of the resident's documented weights, included, but were not limited to, the following: a. On 12/24/24, the resident's weight was 362.6 pounds. On 12/23/24, the resident's weight was 353.0 pounds. This was an increase of 9.6 pounds in 24 hours. The record lacked a physician notification regarding weight gain. b. On 12/27/24, 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 · D2025-01-13 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure insulin (a medication to treat diabetes mellitus) vials were dated when opened and disposed of when expired for 1 of 2 carts reviewed for medication storage. (200 hall cart) Finding includes: During a medication storage observation of the 200 hall cart, accompanied by RN 6 on [DATE] at 10:22 a.m., the following was observed: One open vial of Lantus (long-acting) insulin, dated [DATE]; the vial contained approximately 40 units. One open vial of Lantus (long-acting) insulin, undated; the vial contained approximately 260 units. One open vial of Novolog (rapid-acting) insulin, undated; the vial contained approximately 200 units. During an interview at the time of the observation, RN 6 indicated insulin was good for 28 days and the insulin dated [DATE] was expired and should no longer be used. The undated insulin pens had one or more doses used and should have been dated when opened. During an interview, on [DATE] at 11:37 a.m., the DON indicated…
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 · E2024-01-22 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop 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 care plans had measurable goals and individualized approaches for 4 of 14 residents reviewed for care plan development (Residents 44, 45, 4, and 19) Findings include: 1. Resident 44's clinical record was reviewed on 1/18/24 at 11:15 a.m. Current diagnoses included anxiety disorder, insomnia, hypertension, malaise, and acquired absence of right leg above the knee. An 11/2/23, quarterly, Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment indicated the resident had no cognitive limitation, understood others and was understood by others, and displayed no maladaptive behaviors during the assessment period. The resident had a current, 11/2/23, care plan problem/need regarding insomnia. The goal to this problem was to achieve 6-8 hours of restful sleep. During an interview on 1/19/24 at 10:20 a.m., the Social Services Designee (SSD) indicated the facility did not have a method to measure restful sleep. 2. Resident 45's clinical record was reviewed on 1/17/24 at 11:25 a.m. Current diagnoses included lupus, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia,…
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 · E2024-01-22 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to review and revise care plans for 1 of 14 resident reviewed for care plan revision (Resident 4). Findings include: Resident 4's clinical record was reviewed on 1/17/24 at 11:33 a.m. Current diagnosis included Alzheimer's disease, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and unspecified psychosis. A 12/16/23, quarterly, Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment indicated the resident had mild cognitive limitations, understood others and was understood by others, had moderate self-reported depression, received antipsychotic medication, antianxiety medication, and antidepressant medication daily, and displayed no maladaptive medications during the assessment period. The resident had a current, 5/31/22, care plan problem/need regarding cognitive impairment due to dementia. An additional approach to this visit was for the SSD to visit weekly and as needed. This approach originated 2/28/22. The resident had a current, 2/27/22, care plan problem/need depression, which contained a 6/23/22 note which indicated the resident stated 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 · E2024-01-22 · tag F0745 — failed to provide medically-related social services — patternProvide medically-related social services to help each resident achieve the highest possible quality of life.
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 offer medically related social services to residents with a diagnosis of a major mental illness in relation to behavior monitoring, behavior management, updating care plans, and provision of personalized care for mental and behavioral health for 4 of 4 residents reviewed for provision of medically related social services (Residents 44, 45, 4 and 19) Findings include: 1. During a resident group interview on 1/17/24 at 10:30 a.m., Resident 44 indicated he suffered from insomnia and liked to sleep whenever he can. Staff woke him up for showers and such. When he said no he'd rather sleep, they say he refused care. During an interview on 1/22/23 at 11:08 a.m., Resident 44 indicated he had never told the facility he wanted to sleep at night. He had told the facility he wanted to sleep whenever he could sleep. Resident 44's clinical record was reviewed on 1/18/24 at 11:15 a.m. Current diagnosis included anxiety disorder, insomnia, hypertension, malaise, and acquired absence of right leg above the knee. A 10/28/23 ,…
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 · D2024-01-22 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and observation, the facility failed to assess a resident at risk for nutritional decline and weight loss and failed to implement weight loss interventions for 1 of 3 resident reviewed for nutrition. (Resident 27) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 27 was reviewed on 1/17/24 at 2:43 p.m. Diagnosis included nontraumatic subdural hemorrhage, essential hypertension, and Alzheimer's disease with early onset. Current physician's orders included pureed diet (may have oatmeal) (4/23/21) and house shake with meals for supplement- Give one container/serving by mouth, record percentage consumed (1/26/23). The resident's monthly weight record indicated the following: On 9/6/23 the resident weighed 131.6 pounds. On 10/1/23 the resident weighed 132.1 pounds. On 1/5/24 the resident weighed 117.0 pounds. (A loss of 15.1 pounds since the resident's last recorded weight 3 months prior.) The monthly weight record lacked a weight for November 2023 and December 2023. The resident's clinical record lacked a dietary progress note since he had resumed…
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 · D2024-01-22 · 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 food was palatable for 5 of 5 residents interviewed in the Resident Council group interview. Findings included: During a meal service observation on 1/16/24 at 12:05 p.m., one hall tray cart had been prepared and sent to the halls for distribution. During an interview on 1/16/24 at 12:10 p.m., the dietary manager indicated he had forgotten to take food temperatures before serving the meals. During a meeting with the Resident Council group on 1/18/24 at 10:23 a.m., the following food - related concerns were expressed: 5 of 5 residents indicated hot food was served cold three times a week or more. The food being cold made it not enjoyable to eat. 4 of 5 residents indicated vegetables were overcooked and mushy three times a week or more. The fifth resident indicated they did not eat vegetables and therefore did not have an opinion. 5 of 5 residents indicated the food was bland, flat or without flavor three times a week or more. 5 of 5 residents indicated meat was hard, overcooked, or dry three times 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 · D2023-11-21 · tag F0825 — isolatedProvide or get specialized rehabilitative services as required for a resident.
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 obtain therapy services in a timely manner for a resident who was admitted following a stroke for 1 of 3 resident reviewed for admission to facility. (Resident B) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident B was reviewed on 11/21/23 at 9:24 a.m. Diagnoses included history of stroke, hemiplegia (paralysis) affecting dominant right side, dysphagia following stroke, and metabolic encephalopathy. He was admitted to the facility on [DATE], following an acute hospital stay for the treatment of a stroke. An admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 9/23/23, indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired, was dependent for activities of daily living (ADLs), and had difficulty swallowing. A physician's order, dated 9/16/23, indicated PT (physical therapy), OT (occupational therapy), and ST (speech therapy) evaluation on admission, readmission, and/or as needed; may evaluate and treat if appropriate. A Physician Note, dated 9/19/23,…
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.
- 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 INFINITY HEALTHCARE CONSULTING — 69 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 | 2.0 | +2.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.1 | +1.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
The other 68 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.0★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 68; lowest-rated first.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JOHNSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 03/01/2013 |
| LOCKE, KIMBERLY | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 07/01/2022 |
| SCHNEIDER, MAGGIE | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 11/16/2018 |
| DECOLA, ROBERT | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 02/16/2019 |
| BERKHOUSE, STEVEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/18/2021 |
| DUNKLE, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/01/2019 |
| THE WATERS OF CHESTERFIELD SKILLED NURSING FACILITY, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 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 $418K 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.
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 155617. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-30, 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.