Springs Valley Meadows
457 S Sr 145, French Lick, IN 47432 · Non profit - Other · 74 certified beds · (812) 936-9991 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (30% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jan 2024
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 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 | 8.1% | 11.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.4% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.2% | 1.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 31.7% | 25.2% | 6.5% | worse 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 | 1.6% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.4% | 11.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 24.3% | 23.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.1% | 3.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.5% | 23.3% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 2.0% | 13.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.8% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 79.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.3% | 22.2% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 22.3% | 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 | 1.65 | 1.44 | 1.80 | typical |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ 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.
50.8% 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 57 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 83.8% 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 37 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 0.31 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 51% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 50.8%CMS range 42.5–61.8 | 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 | 9.7%CMS range 6.7–14.4 | 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 | 83.8% | 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 | 56.8% | 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 | 75.7% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 7.9%CMS range 4.6–12.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.17 | 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 74 beds and averages 69.9 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.54 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.79 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.18 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 3.05 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.75 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.90 to 0.51 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 30% is below 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2026-05-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were followed for 2 of 3 residents observed for incontinence care and 3 of 7 residents observed for medication pass. The nursing staff failed to change gloves after touching multiple items in the room before starting incontinence care, touched medications with bare hands, and a washed hands with a five second lather. (Resident 61, Resident 21, Resident 24, Resident 45, Registered Nurse 32, CNA 14, CNA 21, CNA 44)Findings include: 1. On 4/27/26 at 6:35 A.M., Registered Nurse (RN) 32 was observed prepping medications for Resident 21. She pulled the card of medications up from the cart, put the following medications into her bare hand, placed them into a medication cup, and administered them to the resident: one Aspirin 81 milligrams (mg) tablet for anticoagulation one Lisinopril 5 mg tablet for high blood pressure one memantine 10 mg tablet for dementia one Zoloft 50 mg tablet for depression one Vascepa 1 gram (gm) tablet for high cholesterol one Vitamin D3 25 microgram (mcg)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-01 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure narcotics were double locked in the medication cart for 1 of 2 medication carts observed. Narcotic box on medication cart was not locked. (South Long Hall Medication Cart)Finding includes:On 4/27/26 at 6:15 A.M., the South Long Hall Medication Cart narcotic box was observed to be unlocked.During an interview on 4/30/26 at 9:09 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 56 indicated medication carts should always be locked, and the narcotic box should always be under a double lock.On 5/2/26 at 10:25 A.M., a current Controlled Substances Policy, dated November 2024, was provided by the Administrator and indicated, . It is the policy of this facility that all controlled substances will be stored . by state regulations . All controlled substances administered by the facility should be kept under double lock . 410 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 16.2-3.1-25(n)
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-01 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately document in clinical records for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for hospice, and 1 of 3 residents reviewed for nutrition. A resident's clinical record contained a different resident's hospice records and snacks were documented as eaten when not consumed. (Resident 6, Resident 11)Findings include: 1. On 4/28/26 at 10:36 A.M., Resident 6's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnosis included, but was not limited to, Alzheimer's disease. The most recent significant change MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 3/13/26, indicated hospice care.Resident documents included, but were not limited to, scanned and uploaded hospice documentation dated 4/7/26. The documentation belonged to a different resident in the facility that was also under hospice care.On 4/29/26 at 10:35 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated hospice documentation was generally uploaded to the resident's clinical record every three months, with updates to the plan of care, and when the resident passed.2. On 4/28/26 at 10:41 A.M.,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-02-27 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain safe and secure storage of medications for 1 of 4 medication carts observed. The narcotic box lid inside the cart was not closed completely to engage the lock. (South Long Hall Medication Cart) Finding includes: On 2/26/25 at 9:45 A.M., the South Long Hall Medication Cart was observed. The lid was not closed completely to engage the lock. Narcotics were observed stored in the box at the time. At that time, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 24 indicated it was not broken and should have been closed and locked. During an interview, on 2/26/25 at 1:44 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated all narcotics should be double locked. On 2/26/25 at 2:36 P.M., a current Medication Storage Policy, revised 6/30/23, was provided by the DON and indicated . The community should store Schedule II-V controlled substances [narcotics] and other medications deemed by the community as at-risk for abuse or diversion in a separately locked, affixed compartment in a cart . 3.1-25(n)
- Potential for harm · E2025-02-27 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide meals at an acceptable temperature for 1 of 1 lunch trays sampled on 1 of 2 units. Food was served cold. (South Hall) Finding includes: During an interview on 2/24/25 at 11:33 A.M., an anonymous resident indicated the food was not served hot. During an interview on 2/26/25 at 1:35 P.M., an anonymous resident indicated the food was not served hot. During an observation on 2/26/25 at 11:46 A.M., the South Hall meal trays were being distributed to resident rooms from a meal cart. The individual meals were covered with an insulated dome with a base. At 11:52 A.M., a hall tray was sampled. The cheeseburger temperature was 113 degrees Fahrenheit. It was cold to the touch and tasted cold, and the cheese was not melted on the hamburger. During an interview on 2/26/25 at 2:11 P.M., [NAME] 25 indicated cheeseburgers should be a minimum of 145 degrees Fahrenheit when they are served to the residents. On 2/26/25 at 1:21 P.M., a current Food Temperatures policy, revised 6/2023, was provided by the Administrator…
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 · D2024-03-22 · tag F0744 — failed to care for residents with dementia — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with dementia.
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure person centered interventions were implemented for dementia related behaviors for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for dementia care. (Resident 5) Findings include: The record for Resident 5 was reviewed on 3/20/24 at 6:35 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, dementia with agitation, cognitive communication deficit, and insomnia. The physician's order, dated 5/12/22, indicated the resident may receive psychiatric services. The physician's order, dated 5/17/22, indicated staff were to apply a wanderguard to the resident's right wrist for exit seeking behavior, and to check the device for function daily. The resident was to be monitored for exit seeking behavior every shift. The Activity Assessment, dated 5/18/22, indicated the resident was interviewed by the Activities Director on her activity preferences. She documented the following were somewhat important: -Having coloring books, word searches, and puzzle books. -Listening to gospel…
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 · D2024-03-22 · 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
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Social Services followed up on residents that exhibited mood and behavior issues, and failure to consult with family members related to behaviors for 4 of 6 residents reviewed for Social Services. (Residents 8, 33, and 54) Findings include, 1. The record for Resident 8 was reviewed on 3/18/24 at 2:10 p.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, vascular dementia with mood disturbance, disorder of adult personality and behavior, and seizures. The Quarterly MDS (Minimal Data Set) assessment, dated 2/13/24, indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. The nurse's note, dated 6/20/23 at 9:13 a.m., indicated the resident told the nurse of his wife's passing. The resident was encouraged to talk about his concerns or feelings. The nurse was able to sit and talk with the resident. The nurse's note, dated 6/20/23 at 11:42 p.m., indicated the resident came back at the beginning of the shift. The resident was tearful at times due to his wife's passing. The resident wanted to go to bed early. The nurse's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-22 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate documentation of controlled substances on the controlled drug record sheet for 2 of 27 residents reviewed for narcotic storage. (Residents 2 and 28) Findings include: 1. During an observation of the South Short Hall Medication Cart on 3/18/24 at 10:17 a.m., with QMA (Qualified Medication Aide) 3 Resident 2's acetaminophen-codeine number (#)4 medication card contained only 20 tablets of the medication. Resident 2's clonazepam 0.5 mg (milligrams) medication card contained only 22 tablets of the medication. The controlled drug storage record sheet indicated there should be 21 doses of the acetaminophen-codeine #4 and 23 tablets of the clonazepam 0.5 mg remaining. The last doses signed out on the controlled drug storage record sheet were on 3/17/24 at 5:00 p.m. The record for Resident 2 was reviewed on 3/18/24 at 10:20 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, generalized anxiety disorder and muscle spasm. The physician's order, dated 11/19/20, indicated the resident received…
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 · D2024-03-22 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medication errors less than 5% for 3 of 30 medication observations of medication administration. (Resident 28) Findings include: During an observation of medication administration for Resident 28 on 3/18/24 at 10:32 a.m., QMA (Qualified Medication Aide) 4 indicated she was preparing medications for Resident 28. She obtained one tablet of Ativan 0.5 mg (milligram) from the narcotic drawer and placed it into a medication cup. She then obtained two tablets of potassium 10 meq (milliequivalent) and 1 tablet of levothyroxine 150 mcg (micrograms) from the medication cart and dispensed them into the same cup. She did not have the Resident's MAR (Medication Administration Record) pulled up on her computer. She then pulled up a copy of the resident's physicians order, and prepared the rest of the resident's morning medications, which included coreg 6.25 mg, clopidogrel 75 mg, gingko biloba, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg, imdur 20 mg three one half tablets to equal 30 mg, lisinopril 10 mg, Namenda 10 mg,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-22 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate labeling and storage of medications for 3 of 27 residents reviewed for Medication Storage. (Residents 33, 61, and 273) Findings include: 1. During an observation of the South Short Hall Medication Cart on [DATE] at 10:17 a.m., with QMA (Qualified Medication Aide) 3, there was a bottle of lispro, dated [DATE], with Resident 33's first and last name written on it in black marker. The bottle was open and approximately three-quarters full. There was also a Fiasp insulin pen for Resident 33, dated [DATE]. The record for Resident 33 was reviewed on [DATE] at 1:00 p.m. The diagnosis included, but was not limited to, type 2 diabetes mellitus. The physician's order, dated [DATE], indicated the resident received Fiasp FlexTouch U-100 insulin pen per sliding scale four times daily. The order was discontinued on [DATE]. The physician's order, dated [DATE], indicated the resident received insulin lispro U-100 per sliding scale four…
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 · D2024-03-22 · tag F0790 — failed to provide dental care — isolatedProvide routine and 24-hour emergency dental care for each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to promptly obtain dental services for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for dental services. (Resident 23) Findings include, The record for Resident 23 was reviewed on 3/19/24 at 10:34 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, functional dyspepsia, constipation, muscle weakness, chronic vascular disorders of the intestine, nausea, and vomiting. The admission MDS (Minimal Data Set) assessment, dated 2/6/24, indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. The care plan, dated 3/4/24, indicated the resident had some of his natural teeth lost. He did not have dentures or a partial plate. The interventions included, but were not limited to, obtaining dental consult as indicated, and observing chewing or eating difficulties at meals. The nurse's note, dated 7/29/23 at 9:50 a.m., indicated the resident continued to complain of oral pain due to the loss of a filling. Slight redness was observed on the gum. Resident 23 stated, it makes it difficult to chew Staff would continue to monitor the resident. The nurse's…
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 · Ecited before2024-01-31 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an accurate account of controlled medications dispensing and administration records were maintained. Medication administration records were not completed and/or did not match controlled substance records and controlled substance records were dated incorrectly. (Resident B, Resident C, Resident D, Resident F, Resident G, Resident H) Findings include: 1. During a review of facility reported incidents on 1/31/2 at 12:50 P.M., an incident, dated 10/9/23, included that during an audit, a concern for inaccurate documentation of PRN (as needed) narcotic administration. Medication administration date was noted to be prior to received date. During record review on 1/31/24 at 11:40 A.M., Resident B's physician orders included, but were not limited to hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg (milligram) as needed (started on admission date 10/4/23). Resident B's medication administration record indicated the first date the resident received a PRN hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg medication was on 10/7/23. A review of Resident B's…
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 · D2024-01-31 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from verbal abuse for 1 of 1 allegations of abuse. A staff member cursed at a resident while the resident was exhibiting inappropriate behaviors. (Resident D) Finding includes: During a review of facility reported incidents on 1/31/2 at 12:45 P.M., an incident, dated 10/25/23, included that a staff member used inappropriate language while having a conversation with Resident D. During record review on 1/31/24 at 1:30 P.M., Resident D's diagnoses included but was not limited to dementia, recurrent depressive episodes, major depressive disorder, and altered mental status. Resident D's most recent Annual MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessment, dated 11/2/23, included that the resident was cognitively intact. Resident D's care plan included but was not limited to resident exhibits bothersome behavior towards others. An approach included educate resident on the reason it is not appropriate to bother others (started 3/2/22). Resident exhibits sexual inappropriate comments toward female staff. An approach…
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 | 4 of 5 | 2.3 | +1.7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| DAVIS, TABATHA | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 08/12/2024 |
| DICE, MARK | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 06/01/2023 |
| LOPEZ, JOSE | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 12/01/2018 |
| VAN CAMP, STEVEN | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 09/06/2019 |
| WIDDIFIELD, RILEY | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 03/25/2024 |
| 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 | since 01/01/2003 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — 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.
This home reported $1.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% 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 155126. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-01, 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.