Waterford Crossing
1332 Waterford Cir, Goshen, IN 46526 · For profit - Corporation · 87 certified beds · (574) 534-3920 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- 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 (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (27% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
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) | 5 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 held steady at 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 | 4.7% | 11.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.6% | 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 | 0.0% | 1.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 12.0% | 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 | 2.8% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.1% | 11.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.6% | 23.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.2% | 3.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 28.1% | 23.3% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.7% | 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 | 95.4% | 79.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.4% | 22.2% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.4% | 10.8% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.69 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.69 | 1.44 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
60.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 226 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 68.9% 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 148 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 0.42 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 72% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 60.9%CMS range 53.6–66.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.3%CMS range 7.7–13.7 | 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 | 68.9% | 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 | 71.6% | 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 | 62.8% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.1% | 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 | 1.1% | 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 | 5.9%CMS range 3.7–10.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.06 | 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 87 beds and averages 72.9 residents a day — about 84% occupied, or roughly 14 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.44 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.16 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.70 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.80 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.71 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.21 to 1.04 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 27% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2026-03-23 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to keep documentation of the facilities infection control surveillance records. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 73 of the 73 residents who resided in the facility. Finding includes: A review of the Infection Control Binder (ICB) was completed on 3/23/2026 at 10:37 A.M. The ICB included the infection control surveillance for January through March 2026, but did not include any other months before January 2026. During an interview with the Infection Prevention Nurse (IPN) at 3/23/2026 at 10:40 A.M., the IPN indicated she had not believed she was required to have kept any of the infection control surveillance information and she had been throwing away the monthly infection control surveillance information at the beginning of the next month. The IPN indicated the last annual survey had been December 2024. During an interview with the Region Nurse Consultant (RNC) on 3/23/2026 at 11:45 A.M., the RNC indicated monthly infection control surveillance documents should have been kept in the ICB from one annual survey…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-23 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide pneumococcal immunizations for 2 of 5 residents whose immunizations were reviewed. (Residents 39 & 40)Findings include: 1. Resident 39's record review was completed on 3/23/2026 at 10:00 A.M. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to: dementia, major depressive disorder and chronic pulmonary disease. Resident 39's record lacked the documentation indicating she had been offered or had been administered the pneumococcal vaccination in the last year. 2. Resident 40's record review was completed on 3/23/2026 at 10:05 A.M. Diagnoses included, but were not limit to: vascular dementia, hypertension, dysphagia and major depression. Resident 40's record lacked the documentation indicating she had been offered or had been administered the pneumococcal vaccination in the last year. During an interview with the Infection Prevention Nurse (IPN) on 3/23/2025 at 10:30 A.M., the IPN indicated vaccinations should be offered yearly and she would have to look to see if Residents 39 and 40 had been offered or had received 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 · D2024-12-18 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to honor a resident's shower preference for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for choices. (Resident 13) Finding includes: During an interview, on 12/13/2024 at 9:42 A.M., Resident 13 was unsure if the facility asked her about her preference for showers. She indicated she received a shower two times a week on the evening shift. She indicated she would like to have a shower daily on the day shift, as she had never showered in the evening before this admission. A record review for Resident 13 was completed on 12/16/2024 at 1:05 P.M. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to: anemia, end stage renal disease and celiac disease. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/26/2024, indicated Resident 13 was cognitively intact and it was important to her to choose between a tub bath, shower, bed bath or sponge bath. On 12/11/2024, the census information indicated Resident 13 had moved from room [ROOM NUMBER] to room [ROOM NUMBER]. A Shower Schedule, for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-18 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a care plan for vision needs was in place for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for communication and sensory needs. (Resident 8) Finding includes: During an interview, on 12/12/2024 at 10:25 A.M., Resident 8 indicated he could not read the newspaper or the Bible. A record review for Resident 8 was completed, on 12/13/2024 at 12:57 P.M. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to: metabolic encephalopathy, major depressive disorder and macular degeneration. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/9/2024, indicated Resident 8 had moderate cognitive impairment and had impaired vision and utilized corrective lenses. An Annual MDS assessment, dated 8/19/2024, indicated a CAA (care area assessment) was triggered for visual impairment for Resident 8, but a plan of care related to vision needs was not developed. A Social Service Comprehensive Note, dated 8/19/2024 at 3:36 P.M., indicated Resident 8 had impaired vision with ability to see large print but not regular print when reading newspapers or books. 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 · D2024-12-18 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 7 nursing staff administering medications maintained professional standards of quality. (QMA 4) Findings include: During a medication observation, on 12/16/2024 at 8:25 A.M., QMA 4 was observed to remove a soufflé medication cup from the top drawer of the 300-hall medication cart. Resident 56's name was written on the side of the souffle cup that contained 14 different medications. The top drawer of the medication cart also contained 2 more souffle cups with the names of Residents 13 and 134 written on the side of the cups. During an interview, on 12/16/2024 at 8:26 A.M., QMA 4 indicated he should not have preset the medications. On 12/18/2024 at 11:51 A.M., the Director of Nursing provided the policy titled, Medication Administration-General Guidelines, with a revision date of 11/2018, and indicated the policy was the one currently used by the facility. The policy indicated . 4. Medications are not pre-poured either in advance of the med pass or for more than one resident at a time 3.1-35(g)(1)
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-18 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure over the counter medications were labeled appropriately for 1 of 2 medication storage carts. (300 hall- back medication cart). Finding includes: During a medication administration observation, on 12/17/2024 at 6:09 A.M., RN 11 obtained medication bottles from the cart. The following medications had labels indicating the ordering physician, resident's name or ordered dose: - a bottle of 81 mg (milligrams) aspirin. - multiple bottles of men's multi vitamin capsules - q bottle of vitamin B 12 - 5000 mg tablets - a bottle of multi-vitamins - a bottle of Acetaminophen 650 mg. During an interview, RN 11 indicated the medications observed without labels should have been labeled. On 12/17/2024 at 9:52 A.M., the Director of Nursing provided the policy titled, Medication Ordering and Receiving from Pharmacy- Medication Labels, dated 11/2018, and indicated the policy was the one currently used by the facility. The policy indicated . F. Resident-specific non prescription medications (not floor stock) that are not…
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 before2024-12-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to follow infection control practices regarding enhanced barrier precautions for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis care. (Resident 13) Finding includes: A record review for Resident 13 was completed on 12/16/24 at 1:05 P.M. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to: anemia, end stage renal disease and dependence on renal dialysis. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/26/2024, indicated Resident 13 had moderate cognitive impairment and received dialysis care. A Physician's Order, dated 11/2/2024, indicated staff were to use enhanced barrier precautions, wearing a gown and gloves at minimum, during high-contact care activities three times a day. A current Care Plan, initiated on 10/22/2024, indicated Resident 13 required enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) during high-contact care related to presence of dialysis treatment with a fistula. Interventions included, but were not limited to: don/doff and dispose of PPE (Patient Protective Equipment) systematically and appropriately per policy,…
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 before2024-01-29 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
During observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a personalized care plan for 1 of 22 residents whose care plans were reviewed. (Resident 49) Finding includes: The record review for Resident 49 was completed on 1/23/2024 at 2:47 P.M. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to: Parkinson's Disease and obstructive sleep apnea. A Physician's Order, dated 9/18/2023, indicated oxygen- bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPap) at 10 cm water at 0 liters to wear during the night and as needed during the day. There was no care plan available for the resident's BiPap machine. During an interview on 1/24/2024 at 9:38 A.M., the MDS Support indicated that Resident 49 should have had a care plan for his BiPap. On 1/25/2024 at 9 A.M., the Clinical Support Nurse provided a policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plan Guideline, dated 12/31/22, and indicated the policy was the one currently used by the facility. The policy indicated . 6. Comprehensive care plans need to remain accurate and current. a. New interventions will be added and updated or directly…
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 · D2024-01-29 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, record review, and observation, the facility failed to provide treatment for a skin tear and dry skin for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for non-pressure related skin conditions. (Resident 43) Finding includes: During an interview on 1/23/2023 at 10:39 A.M., Resident 43 indicated he had sores on both shins. He was scratching and broke the skin open. A record review was conducted on 1/24/2023 at 10:25 A.M. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to: diabetes mellitus type 2, Parkinson's disease, and Alzheimer's disease. An Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/25/2023, indicated Resident 43 had moderate cognitive impairment. Current Physician's Orders indicated a weekly skin assessment was to be completed. There were no orders for any treatment to the shins. A Shower Sheet, dated 1/22/2024, indicated no bruising or redness was observed. A weekly Skin Assessment, dated 1/22/2024, indicated no skin issue was observed. A Care Plan, dated 12/08/2022, indicated Resident 43 was at risk for skin breakdown related to incontinence and impaired mobility. The goal…
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 · D2024-01-29 · 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
3. During observations on 1/22/204 at 9:38 A.M., 1/23/2024 at 10:44 A.M., and 1/24/2024 at 3:12 P.M., Resident 50's CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) mask was observed lying on the bedside table, and a gallon of distilled water was on the floor undated. A record review was completed on 1/25/2024 at 10:26 A.M. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to: pulmonary fibrosis, sleep apnea, and unspecified dementia. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/13/2023, indicated Resident 50 had a non-invasive mechanical ventilation device. A Physician's Order, dated 5/11/2022, indicated to wear the CPAP at night and as need during the day. A Care Plan, dated 5/26/2022, indicated Resident 50 had the potential for complications of functional and cognitive status decline related to respiratory disease, due to pulmonary fibrosis and sleep apnea with the use of a CPAP. During an interview on 1/25/2024 at 1:04 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated the CPAP mask should be stored in a respiratory bag when it was not in use, and the gallon of distilled water should be…
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 · D2024-01-29 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 reviewed a Medication Regimen Review (MRR) provided by the Pharmacist following a monthly MRR, for 1 out of 5 residants selected for unnecessary medication review. (Resident 225) Finding includes: A record review was completed for Resident 225 on 1/24/2024 at 2:43 P.M. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to: Alzheimer's disease, dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety, neurocognitive disorder with Lewy body, and unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition. A Physician's Order, dated 12/9/2022, indicated doneprizil 10 mg (milligram) tablet, orally at bedtime. A Pharmacy Recommendation, dated 9/26/2023, indicated Resident 225 has an order for DONEPEZIL TAB 10 MG daily. The most recent BIMS [Brief Interview for Mental Status] score on file is < 7 which indicated severe impairment [BIMS =3 on 6/27/23]. The American Geriatric Society has found that deprescribing…
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 before2024-01-29 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 4 nursing staff (QMA 4) administering medications followed infection control policies regarding hand washing. Finding includes: During an observation of a medication administration pass, on 1/24/2024 at 11:01 A.M., QMA 4 administered a crushed oral medication to Resident 31. After he completed the medication administration for Resident 31, he then prepared medication for Resident 62. He assessed Resident 62's vital signs, and then crushed the medications and administered them to Resident 62. QMA 4 then pushed Resident 62 back to the dining table. Next, QMA 4 prepared a medication for Resident 63 and administered the oral medication. QMA 4 did not perform hand hygiene in between any of the three resident's medication preparations and administrations. During an interview with the Administrator, on 1/26/2024 at 2:31 P.M., she indicated the medication policy included instructions for handwashing during the medication administration process. The facility policy, titled, Preparation and General…
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 TRILOGY HEALTH SERVICES — 123 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 | 4.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 5 of 5 | 3.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 122 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 122; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HANCOCK REGIONAL HOSPITAL | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 05/01/2015 |
| TRILOGY HEALTHCARE OF GOSHEN, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/01/2015 |
| LONG, STEVEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/13/2022 |
| OFFERLE, ANDREW | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/15/2025 |
| PLANTINGA, JUDY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2023 |
| BARNEY, LEIGH | Individual | LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| DAVIS, DAVID | Individual | LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 12/31/2019 |
| BOND, MARIA | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2021 |
| CLARK, TIMOTHY | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2015 |
| DAUGHERTY, JOSHUA | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| FELKER, DEAN | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2015 |
| JOYNER, SARA | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| WILLARD, LACEY | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2022 |
| WILSON, ROY | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 05/15/2015 |
| TRILOGY HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/24/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 15 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 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 $1.8M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in IN
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Indiana Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 155760. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-23, 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.