Wesley Manor Health Center
1555 N Main St, Frankfort, IN 46041 · Non profit - Corporation · 96 certified beds · (765) 659-1811 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (33% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0604), cited Jun 2024
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 3 actual-harm citations
- the CMS record shows $20,826 in federal fines (most recent 2024-06-18)
- about 18% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 3 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 | 36.5% | 11.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.9% | 5.5% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.7% | 0.4% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.6% | 1.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 22.5% | 25.2% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.9% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 27.6% | 11.9% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 27.6% | 23.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.8% | 95.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.2% | 3.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 31.9% | 23.3% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 2.3% | 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 | 88.6% | 79.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 10.2% | 22.2% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.7% | 10.8% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.24 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.78 | 1.44 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
52.5% 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 68 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 44.1% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 34 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 13% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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 | 52.5%CMS range 41.2–64.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.2%CMS range 7.1–15.8 | 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 | 44.1% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 47.1% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 44.1% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 72.1% | 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 | 4.7% | 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 | 4.7% | 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 | 7.3%CMS range 3.9–12.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.03 | 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 96 beds and averages 89.7 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.64 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.52 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.19 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 3.22 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.81 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.55 to 0.44 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 33% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2025-12-11 · 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 a foley catheter placement was documented and follow-up assessments were completed after a change in urine characteristics were observed for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for catheters. (Resident B) This deficient practice resulted in Resident B being admitted to the hospital with urethral trauma.Findings include:During an interview, on 12/11/25 at 3:04 p.m., Resident B's family indicated the physician in the emergency room had indicated Resident B's catheter was inserted at the facility incorrectly. She was told a nursing student placed the catheter; the balloon was in his urethra and damaged it.The clinical record for Resident B was completed on 12/11/25 at 10:32 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, cerebral infarction, cognitive communication deficit, benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms, and dysuria. A care plan, dated 10/24/25, indicated Resident B had a foley catheter with a goal to remain free from catheter-related trauma. An intervention, added 12/5/25 (after 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.
- Actual harm · G2024-06-18 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a consent with the identified medical reason for the use of a restraint was completed at the initiation of the restraint, to establish a time frame for continuing the use of the restraint and to establish how the restraint would be decreased and discontinued for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for restraints. (Resident 70) This deficient practice resulted in Resident C having three (3) falls with major injuries while using the restraint, had 3 emergency room evaluations and was diagnosed with nasal fractures, lacerations to her face which required sutures, and a laceration to her upper lip which required sutures. Finding includes: During an observation, on 6/13/24 at 11:48 a.m., the resident was observed to be walking in a merry walker (a walker made of plastic PVC type tubing which enclosed the resident in the tubing frame and had a seat at the back of the frame). During an interview, on 6/17/24 at 11:09 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated the resident was not able to get out of the Merry [NAME] on…
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.
- Actual harm · G2023-09-28 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
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 protect a resident from injury while walking with the resident from the bathroom to the resident's recliner without using a gait belt for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident B) Resident B fell and hit their head resulting in a laceration which was treated with staples and an interval development of a right frontoparietal convexity subdural hematoma (a blood vessel in the space between the skull and the brain was damaged). Finding includes: During an observation, on 9/28/23 at 9:41 a.m., Resident B was observed sitting in a recliner with her feet elevated. She appeared clean and dry and was wearing nonskid socks. There was a walker with a gait belt lying across the top and the room was free of obstacles. Resident B did not verbalize responses to questions, instead she nodded for yes and shook her head for no. She denied pain at the time. An Incident Report to the Indiana State Department of Health, dated 9/21/23, 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 · D2026-05-21 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) assessment, physician's order, and care plan related to the self-administration of medications was obtained prior to the self-administration of medications for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for self-medication administration. (Resident 7)Findings include: During an observation, on 5/14/26 at 10:30 a.m., Resident 7 was observed resting in bed with her eyes closed. A cup, containing six (6) pills, was observed on the bedside table. There were no staff present in the room at the time of the observation. The clinical record for Resident 7 was reviewed on 5/18/26 at 8:59 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, emphysema, and hypertension. The clinical record did not contain an IDT assessment, physician's order, or a care plan related to the self-administration of medications. During an interview, on 5/14/26 at 10:35 a.m., LPN 2 indicated there were six pills left at the bedside and she was not aware if Resident 7 was able to…
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 · D2026-05-21 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order for the administration of oxygen was followed for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care. (Resident 7)Findings include:During an observation, on 5/14/26 at 10:30 a.m., Resident 7 was receiving oxygen via nasal cannula at 3.5 liters per minute (lpm). Resident 7 was observed resting in bed with her eyes closed.During an observation, on 5/18/26 at 9:31 a.m., Resident 7 was receiving oxygen via nasal cannula at 3.5 lpm. Resident 7 was observed resting in bed.During an observation, on 5/18/26 at 12:27 p.m., Resident 7 was receiving oxygen via nasal cannula at 3.5 lpm. Resident 7 was observed resting in bed.The clinical record for Resident 7 was reviewed on 5/18/26 at 8:59 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, respiratory failure with hypoxia, emphysema, and hypertension.A care plan, initiated on 6/30/25, indicated Resident 7 had emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and oxygen settings were to be according to the physician's order.A care plan,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-03 · 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 ensure there was documentation the bed hold policy was provided to a resident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for discharge. (Resident 81) The deficient practice was corrected on 5/21/25, prior to the start of the survey, and was therefore past noncompliance. Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 81 was reviewed on 5/28/25 at 2:42 p.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, weakness, Crohn's disease, and dementia. The electronic health record indicated Resident 81 was discharged from the facility to the hospital on 4/8/25. There was no documentation to indicate the bed hold policy had been given to the resident or the resident's representative at the time of the discharge. There was no documentation to indicate the bed hold policy had been emailed or sent by postal service to the resident's representative if needed. During an interview, on 6/2/25 at 11:47 a.m., the Executive Director indicated in May of 2025, the facility started emailing copies of the bed hold policy to 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 · D2025-06-03 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the physician's orders for peritoneal dialysis were followed for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis. (Resident 50) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 50 was reviewed on 5/29/25 at 10:17 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, congestive heart failure, kidney failure, kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, end stage renal disease, and dependence on renal dialysis. A physician's order, dated 12/10/24, indicated to take the resident's vital signs before and after dialysis and to use the morning weight and the systolic blood pressure to determine the dose for dialysis. A physician's order, dated 12/10/24, indicated the resident needed weighed every morning and when the resident's weight was greater than 216 pounds to call the dialysis clinic for further instructions. If the systolic blood pressure was less than 110, use one green (2.5% dextrose) and one yellow (1.5% dextrose) bag regardless of the weight. If the systolic blood pressure was less…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-18 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation was completed to include staff interviews after an injury of unknown source was identifed for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident 34) Finding includes: The clinical record for Resident 34 was reviewed on 6/14/24 at 11:12 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to Alzheimer's disease, dementia, unspecified intellectual disability, cognitive communication deficit, and other reduced mobility. A facility incident report indicated, on 4/7/24, there was bruising noted to Resident 34's right knee with swelling. The on-call nurse practitioner (NP) gave orders to do an x-ray as a precaution. X-ray results showed an acute fracture to the right hip and the bone was diffusely demineralized. A facility incident report with a follow-up added on 4/10/24, indicated on 4/6/24 at 10:00 a.m., the resident was observed to have swelling and her right leg appeared to be turned to the right. On 4/7/24, x-ray results came back and showed an acute right hip fracture. On 4/10/24, 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 · D2024-06-18 · 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to cue and assist a resident during lunch according to the plan of care and to assess/reweigh a resident for a significant weight change for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for nutrition. (Resident 45) Finding includes: During an observation, on 6/12/24 at 12:13 p.m., Resident 45 was sitting up in a pedal Broda (chair for positioning) at the dining table with his eyes closed. His plate still had most of his food. The staff were not cueing or assisting him to eat. Most of the other residents in the dining room had already finished eating. During an observation, on 6/12/24 at 12:24 p.m., a female staff asked Resident 45 if he was hungry, and the resident shook his head for no. The resident was very thin. During an observation, on 6/13/24 at 12:05 p.m., Resident 45 was sitting in his pedal Broda at the dining table. The resident was not eating on his own and the staff were not encouraging or assisting the resident to eat. The staff were helping other residents to eat their lunch. During on observation on 6/14/24 at 12:07…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-18 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 documentation to show the resident specific psychosis/behaviors which were used as the rationale for declining a gradual dose reduction (GDR) of an antipsychotic for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident 38) Finding includes: The clinical record for Resident 38 was reviewed on 6/14/24 at 10:40 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, unspecified dementia with psychotic disturbance, psychotic disorder with delusions due to a known physiological condition, severe major depressive disorder without psychotic features, and dementia with anxiety. A physician's order, dated 9/22/23, indicated to give risperidone (an antipsychotic) 0.25 milligrams (mg) three tablets one time a day for the psychotic disorder with delusions. A pharmacy GDR request, dated 3/1/24, indicated the resident received risperidone 0.75 mg daily and to please attempt a GDR of the risperidone to 0.5 mg daily. The physician response indicated the GDR was declined. The clinical rationale included the resident had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 employee meals were not stored in the nutrition refrigerator, failed to ensure items were dated with open dates and labeled with a name, and failed to ensure thermometers were in the refrigerator/freezers for 3 of 10 nutritional and unit refrigerators observed for safe and sanitary conditions. Findings include: 1. During an observation, on 6/13/24 at 8:23 a.m., the First Floor Unit nutrition refrigerator, located in the medication room, was found to contain a lunch bag. At that time, LPN 1 indicated it was her lunch in the bag. Also found in the refrigerator was a 16-ounce open bottle of strawberry poppy seed salad dressing. The bottle had been opened and was found without an open date or a label indicating who was the owner of the salad dressing. A sign found on the front of the refrigerator indicated .This fridge is for ensures, pudding, applesauce's only. All Staff and resident food/drink items to be put in the fridges at either end of the hallway per state guidance During an interview, on 6/13/24 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- 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
$20,826 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $20,826 — penalty dated 2024-06-18
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to BHI SENIOR LIVING — 9 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 4.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 4.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
The other 8 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WOODLAWN HOSPITAL | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 03/12/2025 |
| BODE, GLEN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 12/09/2022 |
| CHUDZYNSKI, KENDRA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 10/15/2024 |
| HEYDE, ALISON | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 09/09/2019 |
| JOHNSON, TERRI | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 06/13/2022 |
| MELLINGER, GREGORY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 06/13/2022 |
| WEBB, HARRY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 10/15/2023 |
| FISHER, ALAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/13/2022 |
| WESLEY MANOR INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2012 |
| MUSTAKLEM, MARWAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/10/2023 |
| WAYMIRE, GARY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/12/2021 |
| BLOOMSTROM, JOHN | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/07/2025 |
| CALDWELL, JEFFREY | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/09/2025 |
| DALTON, DOUGLASS | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/07/2025 |
| DATTILO, JOHN | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/07/2025 |
| ELLIS, BRIAN | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/07/2025 |
| JONES, L. DEAN | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/07/2025 |
| KELLY, BETH | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/07/2025 |
| KOSELKE, ELIZABETH | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/08/2025 |
| MEREDITH, WENDY | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/08/2025 |
| MILLER, ROGER | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/08/2025 |
| RICHARDSON, JANE | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/08/2025 |
| ROBBINS, FRED | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/08/2025 |
| SEIGEL, JANE | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/08/2025 |
| TERP, JEFFREY | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/08/2025 |
| WEIDEMAN II, ROGER | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/08/2025 |
| BHI RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2012 |
| BHI SENIOR LIVING, INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2012 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 39 rows in the source record cover these 28 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 18% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
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 155658. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-21, 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.