Canterbury Nursing And Rehabilitation Center
2827 Northgate Blvd, Fort Wayne, IN 46835 · For profit - Corporation · 142 certified beds · (260) 492-1400 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
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (58%) 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) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 7.2% | 11.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.0% | 5.5% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 2.2% | 1.1% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 26.1% | 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 | 5.1% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.7% | 11.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.8% | 23.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.4% | 95.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.3% | 3.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.5% | 23.3% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.4% | 13.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 76.0% | 79.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.4% | 22.2% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.1% | 10.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.92 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.12 | 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.
51.4% 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 40 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.17 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 16% 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 | 51.4%CMS range 36.3–63.5 | 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 | 10.6%CMS range 6.8–16.0 | 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 | 95.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 8.3% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 7.6%CMS range 3.6–13.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.99 | 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 142 beds and averages 115.2 residents a day — about 81% occupied, or roughly 27 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 3.18 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.76 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.95 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 2.63 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.40 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.87 to 0.49 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 58% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-29 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure privacy of personal health information for 3 of 25 residents reviewed (Resident 7, Resident 56, and Resident 78). Findings include:In an observation, on 9/26/2025 at 8:43 AM, the 100 hall nurses cart was unattended in the hallway with residents in the area. A worksheet containing vital signs and other resident information for Resident 56 and Resident 78 was lying face up on top of the cart. A stickered medication card with Resident 7's name on a medication label was lying on top of the cart in full view. The label indicated the medication ordered was Vitamin D 50 mcg tablets, take 2 tablets once daily.During an interview, on 09/26/2025 at 8:48 AM, Registered Nurse 2 indicated he was instructed to go to the dining room immediately and had left his cart unattended because he was in a hurry.In an interview on 09/26/2025 at 8:48 AM, the Director of Nursing indicated worksheets with resident information should not be left on top of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-29 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure timely resident assessment and care for 1 of 23 residents reviewed (Resident 117).Findings include:Resident 117's record was reviewed on 09/25/2025 10:58 AM. Diagnoses included Type 2 diabetes mellitus, depression, hypertension, chronic pain syndrome, and polysubstance disorder.Resident 117's current admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] had not been completed at the time of facility exit. Nurse Practitioner 11's progress notes, dated 9/22/25 2:15 PM, indicated Resident 117 had been admitted to the hospital from [DATE] to 9/21/25 for a 2-week history of watery stools, increased weakness, confusion, nausea, syncope, and poor oral intake. The progress note indicated Resident 117 was alert and a poor historian with inconsistent responses.Resident 117's census records indicated he was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] 12:37 PM.Observations including the admission assessment, Braden scale skin risk assessment, fall risk assessment and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-29 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management 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 pain management was provided and documented for 1 of 3 residents reviewed. (Resident 2)Findings include:A record review for Resident 2 began on 9/23/2025 at 2:13 PM. Diagnoses included chronic pain syndrome, displaced intertrochanteric fracture of right femur, sleep apnea, delirium due to known physiological condition, and recurrent major depressive disorder.A review of Resident 2's current quarterly MDS, 8/7/25, indicated their BIMS (Basic Interview for Mental Status) score was 8 (cognitively impaired).A review of Resident 2's current Care plan, titled Resident will be free from adverse effects of Pain, indicated the resident had a problem of pain, with a goal date of 12/03/2025. Interventions included observation of adverse side effects of pain medication including, but not limited to over sedation, constipation, skin rash, nausea/vomiting, loss of appetite, change in mental status, stomach upset. Document abnormal findings and notify MD. Notify MD if pain is unrelieved and/or worsening. Administer…
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 F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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 an indwelling urinary catheter was medically necessary and monitored for symptoms of UTI for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident J). Findings include: On 1/22/24 at 11:35 A.M., Resident J's family member was interviewed. They indicated when the resident admitted to the facility, an indwelling urinary catheter was placed. Following placement of the catheter, the resident had repeated episodes of blood in his urine. After several weeks of these episodes, the resident was sent to the hospital where he was diagnosed with pyelonephritis (kidney infection), urinary tract infection (UTI) and sepsis. The family member indicated they hadn't understood continued use of an indwelling catheter, why it had taken so long to address the blood in the urine, or provide treatment for the UTI. On 1/22/24 at 11:14 A.M., Resident J's record was reviewed. Diagnoses included fracture of right femur and right wrist following a fall at home. He had been hospitalized for surgical repair of the fractures and admitted to the facility 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 · D2023-12-19 · 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 ensure meal trays were distributed in a manner that promoted dignity for 3 of 19 residents reviewed (Resident 52, Resident 66, and Resident 77). Findings include: 1) During an observation on 12/13/23 at 11:46 AM meal service was observed in the women's dementia care unit. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA 2) served trays to individuals throughout the room without serving all residents at a table before proceeding to the next table. Resident 77's tablemate was the first resident served in the dining room. At 11:58 AM, another resident arrived at the table where Resident 77 was sitting, and her meal tray was delivered right after she was seated. Resident 77 was observed staring at her tablemates' food and fidgeting in her chair. Residents at other tables were continuing to receive their trays as Resident 77 still had not been served. Resident 77's tray was delivered at 12:09 PM and the resident was observed handling her silverware properly and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-12-19 · 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 education was provided for a resident pertaining to safe sexual practices for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident 12). Findings include: Resident 12's record was reviewed on 12/14/23 at 11:06 AM. Diagnoses included cerebral infarction, unspecified, dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety, and unspecified viral hepatitis C without hepatic coma. A review of Resident 12's current annual, Minimum Data Set (MDS) indicated his Basic Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 12 (moderately impaired cognition). The MDS indicated Resident 12 was independent with transfers and ambulation. A review of progress notes dated 11/6/23 at 12:09 PM indicated the facility had requested a physician's evaluation to determine if Resident 12 was able to consent to sexual activity. The progress note indicated Medical Doctor (MD) 5 had evaluated Resident 12 and determined he was appropriate to pursue a sexual relationship.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-19 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure recognition and identification of triggers for potential re-traumatization of a resident with a history of trauma for 1 of 7 residents reviewed. (Resident 36) Findings include: In an interview on 12/14/23 at 9:52 AM Resident 36 was observed avoiding eye contact and looking at the floor when spoken to. Resident 36's record was reviewed on 12/15/23 at 11:09 AM. Diagnoses included anxiety, major depressive disorder, panic disorder, dementia, visual hallucinations, unspecified psychosis and a history of alcohol dependence. Resident 36's current quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) indicated their Basic Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 12 (mild cognitive impairment). A Social Service assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident 36 had a history of trauma and had triggers that made them feel unsafe or stressed. The Social Service Assessment indicated the resident had a history of substance abuse. A Social Service assessment dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-19 · tag F0743 — isolatedEnsure that a resident does not develop patterns of decreased social interaction and/or increased withdrawn, angry, or depressive behaviors, unless unavoidable.
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 resident behaviors were monitored for 1 of 7 residents reviewed. (Resident 82) Findings include: In an interview on 12/13/23 at 11:05 AM Resident 82 responded to conversation with an inappropriate comment. Resident 82's record was reviewed on 12/13/23 at 11:45 AM. Diagnoses included stroke, malnutrition and cognitive communication deficit. Resident 82's current quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated their Basic Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was 10 (moderate cognitive impairment). Resident 82's care plan for psychosocial wellbeing dated 10/20/23 indicated the resident had been masturbating in the privacy of his own room with curtains pulled and lights out. The target goal was for Resident 82 to remain private with their personal sexual stimulation through 1/23/24. An intervention dated 10/20/23 was to educate Resident 82 on the need to remain protected with the curtains pulled and/or door closed during their self-stimulation.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-19 · tag F0745 — failed to provide medically-related social services — isolatedProvide 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure social services needs were identified and appropriate social services provided for 2 of 7 residents reviewed. (Residents 36 and 82) Findings include: 1. In an interview on 12/14/23 at 9:52 AM Resident 36 was observed avoiding eye contact and looking at the floor when spoken to. Resident 36's record was reviewed on 12/15/23 at 11:09 AM. Diagnoses included anxiety, major depressive disorder, panic disorder, dementia, visual hallucinations, unspecified psychosis and a history of alcohol dependence. Resident 36's current quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) indicated their Basic Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 12 (mild cognitive impairment). A Social Service assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident 36 had depression, anxiety, panic disorder and hallucinations. The Social Service Assessment indicated Resident 36 had a history of trauma and had triggers that made them feel unsafe or stressed. The Social Service Assessment…
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 · D2023-09-28 · 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 properly secure resident's medication for 3 of 5 residents reviewed. (Resident B, Resident C, and Resident D). Findings include: 1) During an observation and interview, on 9/26/23 at 9:22AM, Resident B indicated the nursing staff frequently leave her medications within reach for her to take on her own. Resident B indicated they brought her medications and left the room multiple times every week without ensuring she took them. Resident B indicated she was not assessed for knowing her medications or when she took them. On her over bed table, a partial bottle of Coricidin HBP liquid (without a pharmacy label), an open box with some tablets removed of Coricidin maximum strength (without pharmacy label), and a bottle of multi vitamins without a pharmacy label were observed. Across the room on a shelf was a partially used bottle of bio freeze in a pharmacy bag with a label. Resident B was able to explain what the medications were for and indicated her son brought the medications in to her. Resident B acknowledged…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to AMERICAN SENIOR COMMUNITIES — 90 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
The other 89 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 89; 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| DRUMMER, CARL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2017 |
| HANIFY, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2022 |
| HORN, BRENDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/01/2023 |
| LAZARD, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/29/2021 |
| MANTRAVADI, GEETA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/21/2021 |
| PAYNE, MONICA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 08/09/2021 |
| BABCOCK, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/30/2020 |
| CAINE, VIRGINIA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/10/1994 |
| HARRIS, LISA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/22/2003 |
| AMERICAN SENIOR COMMUNITIES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/23/2026 |
| ANAND, MEETA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/23/2026 |
| DEREFAKA, TAYLOR | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/27/2023 |
| DICE, MARK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2023 |
| MATHAI, ALEXANDER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/23/2026 |
| VAN CAMP, STEVEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 15 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
About 78% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 10% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in IN
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Indiana Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 155656. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-29, 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.