Thornton Terrace Health Campus
188 Thornton Rd, Hanover, IN 47243 · For profit - Corporation · 55 certified beds · (812) 866-8396 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 (4/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 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 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 | 6.6% | 11.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 5.5% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| 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 | 18.9% | 25.2% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.2% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.5% | 11.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.2% | 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 | 0.4% | 3.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 10.9% | 23.3% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.1% | 13.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.3% | 1.2% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.1% | 79.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.3% | 22.2% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.0% | 10.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.58 | 1.61 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.64 | 1.44 | 1.80 | typical |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ 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.
60.0% 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 124 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 72.9% 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 48 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 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 37% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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 | 60.0%CMS range 52.8–66.9 | 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 | 10.0%CMS range 7.1–13.5 | 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 | 72.9% | 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 | 70.8% | 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 | 64.6% | 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 | 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 | 1.4% | 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 | 2.9% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.3%CMS range 4.4–12.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.04 | 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 55 beds and averages 48.2 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 7 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 3.83 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.91 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.21 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 3.39 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.00 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.98 to 0.74 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2025-09-10 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen equipment was clean, sanitary and the removal of expired food items during 3 of 3 kitchen observations. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 45 of 45 residents who received meals in the facility.Findings include:1. During an observation of the kitchen, on 9/03/25 at 9:25 a.m., the following concerns were identified:-On the floor between the fryer and stove were food debris and a bug trap. There was a yellowish-brown greasy substance running down the right side of the stove. -There were three brown colored burnt areas on the back panel behind each burner of the stove top.-The drip pan under the stove top had a foil liner that was 100% covered with a tan substance and food debris.-The grill top to the left of the stove had a black build-up on the griddle irons.-The drip pan under the grill had a torn foil liner with a half inch of a brown liquid substance with a heavy coverage of food debris.-Dried food debris was observed on a large, slotted spoon hanging from the overhead…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-10 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident had an order to self administer medications related to medications left at the bedside for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for self-administration of medication. (Resident 31)Findings include:An observation, on 9/3/25 at 10:01 a.m., indicated Resident 31 had multiple medications in a medicine cup sitting on the resident's bedside table. No staff members were present or near the resident's room. The medications were due between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. There was an open inhaler sitting next to the medicine cup on the bedside table. The resident was asleep and did not observe the medications sitting next to her breakfast bowls. During an interview, on 9/3/25 at 10:03 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 9 looked at the orders and indicated there was no order for the resident for self-administration. She indicated the following medications were in the medication cup on the resident's bedside table: Tart cherry supplement; Potassium; metoprolol; Hair, Skin, and Nails vitamins; Lysine; Allopurinol;…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-10 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 the accuracy of skin assessments (Residents 2 and 23) and failed to ensure accurate coding of the Minimum Data Set assessments (Resident 11) for 3 of 6 residents reviewed for assessments. Findings include:1.The record for Resident 2 was reviewed on 9/7/25 at 9:48 a.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, osteomyelitis, type II diabetes mellitus with a foot ulcer, and orthopedic care following a surgical amputation The care plan, dated 11/2/21 and revised 7/9/25, indicated the resident was at risk for skin breakdown related to impaired mobility, type II diabetes, nutritional status, hand contractures, noncompliance with wearing a stump shrinking device. The interventions included, but were not limited to, floating the heels as needed, pressure reducing cushion to his chair, using moisture barrier to the perineal area as needed, a pressure reducing mattress to the bed, avoid shearing skin during positioning, turning, and transferring, encourage and provide assistance to turn and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-10 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure care plans were revised and implemented with interventions for 2 of 12 residents review for care plan revision. (Residents 2 and 23)Findings include:1.The record for Resident 2 was reviewed on 9/7/25 at 9:48 a.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, osteomyelitis, type II diabetes mellitus with a foot ulcer, and orthopedic care following a surgical amputation. The care plan, dated 11/2/21 and revised 7/9/25, indicated the resident was at risk for skin breakdown related to impaired mobility, type II diabetes, nutritional status, hand contractures, noncompliance with wearing a stump shrinking device. The interventions included, but were not limited to, floating the heels as needed, pressure reducing cushion to his chair, using moisture barrier to the perineal area as needed, a pressure reducing mattress to the bed, avoid shearing skin during positioning, turning, and transferring, encourage and provide…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-10 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident's wounds had accurate documentation for size, staging, and treatment for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for non pressure wounds.Findings include:1.During an observation of the resident on 9/8/25 at 1:21 p.m., the resident was sitting on his left hip in his recliner. The resident was asleep. The Infection Control Infection Tracker Event Report, dated 9/2/25, indicated Resident 23 had Cellulitis/Soft Tissue/Wound to the buttocks with light green drainage. This was a healthcare-associated infection. The signs and symptoms of the cellulitis/soft tissue/wound infection was redness, tenderness, and purulent drainage. The interventions were to give medications as prescribed for the infection, encourage fluids, monitor for effectiveness of the antibiotic, and monitor for signs and symptoms of the infection. The care plan, dated 5/2/24 and reviewed 9/3/25, indicated Resident 23 had moister associated skin damage (MASD. The interventions,…
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 · D2024-08-21 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received medications as ordered for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. (Resident 34) Findings include: The record for Resident 34 was reviewed on 8/16/24 at 9:32 a.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, anxiety disorder and depression. The care plan, dated 7/4/24, indicated the resident had a diagnosis of anxiety and demonstrated anxiousness, restlessness, agitation, and aggressive behaviors. The interventions included, but were not limited to, encourage the resident to voice the cause for his anxiety and problem solve ways to resolve stressors, identify and avoid triggers whenever possible, provide consistency and routine, monitor for increased signs and symptoms and resolve the concerns when possible. The Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 6/24/24, indicated the resident was moderately cognitively intact. The resident had physical behavioral symptoms directed toward others. The nurse's notes, dated 6/5/24 at 12:02 a.m., indicated the CNA (Certified…
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 before2024-08-21 · 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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure influenza vaccinations were monitored for expiration dates and disposal of the expired medication for 1 of 4 observations of medication storage. (Medication Room refrigerator) Findings include: During an observation on 8/16/24 at 1:01 p.m., of the 200 Hall medication storage room with RN 5, four boxes of Fluzone influenza vaccination, plus an open box with one vial of Fluzone influenza vaccination had an expiration date of June 2024. She indicated the influenza vaccinations were dated June 2024, and she would check to make sure the boxes and vial were expired. There were 10 vials of the influenza vaccine in each box for a total of 41 vials. During an interview on 8/16/24 at 2:10 p.m., the ED (Executive Director) indicated the influenza vaccinations were expired. She indicated they had not been administered since the influenza season ended. During an interview on 8/20/24 at 8:43 a.m., LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 4 indicated if an influenza vaccination was expired, it would go to the DON (Director of Nursing) 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 · D2024-01-11 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident rights related to dignity for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for resident rights. (Resident B) Findings include: The record for resident B was reviewed on 1/10/23 at 11 33 AM. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, incomplete lesion at C5 level of cervical spinal cord, quadriplegia C5 through 37 incomplete, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety, paraplegia, reduce mobility, lack of coordination, muscle weakness, and difficulty in walking. The quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, Dated 12/27/23, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The care plan initiated on 12/26/23 and last revised on 1/3/24 indicated the resident had a history of verbal behaviors directed towards staff such as threatening their jobs, accusing them of abuse, retaliatory behaviors, inappropriate attachment to staff, and recording conversations. The interventions included but were not limited to avoiding power struggles with resident conveying attitude of acceptance to resident,…
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 · D2024-01-11 · 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
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate interventions and response for dementia related behaviors for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for dementia care. (Resident C) Findings include: During an observation on 1/10/24 at 10:35 a.m., Resident C was in his bed. He was pleasantly confused and very hard of hearing. When asked his name he indicated a name which was not his. He was not able to be interviewed. He appeared pleasantly confused and in no distress. He had no visible bruising at this time. The record for Resident C was reviewed on 1/10/24 at 11:16 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, unspecified psychosis, hallucinations, altered mental status, visual disturbance, unsteadiness on feet, and muscle weakness. The Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 11/24/23, indicated the resident was rarely or never understood and was not assessed for cognitive status. The nurses note, dated 9/26/23 at 12:49 a.m., indicated the resident was being verbally and physically aggressive that night. He refused his medications…
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 before2023-07-03 · 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were appropriately labeled and discarded within appropriate time frames in 3 of 3 medication carts observed for medication storage. (200 Front Hall cart, 200 Back Hall cart, and the Memory Care unit cart) Findings include: 1. During an observation on 6/30/23 at 8:49 a.m. ,of the 200 Hall Medication Cart with LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 9, the following concerns were observed: a. Resident 197's albuterol pro-air HFA (hydrofluoroalkane inhaler) was stored lying down in its side in the box. The side label of the medication indicated to store with the mouthpiece down. The clinical record for Resident 197 was reviewed on 6/30/23 at 1:00 p.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) with acute exacerbation, acute respiratory failure with hypercapnia, and acute bronchitis. The physician's order, dated 6/9/23, indicated the resident received albuterol sulfate HFA aerosol inhaler 90 mcg/act (micrograms per actuation) 2 inhalations every 6 hours…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-03 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the 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 ensure the physician was notified of residents change in condition for 2 of 16 residents reviewed for physician notification. (Residents 32 and 35) Findings include: 1. The record for Resident 32 was reviewed on 6/27/23 at 9:26 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, essential hypertension and hyperlipidemia. The Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 5/28/23, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The care plan, initiated on 2/23/23 and last revised on 6/5/23, indicated the resident had a potential for cardiovascular distress related to a diagnosis of hypertension. The interventions included, but were not limited to, provide medications as ordered, observe for and report side effects as needed, observe for signs/ symptoms of cardiovascular distress and report as needed, and obtain vital signs as ordered and needed. The nurse's note, dated 5/2/23 at 5:00 p.m., indicated the resident was sitting up in the dining room and stated, Can you check my blood pressure, I feel dizzy. His blood…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-03 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received the appropriate perineal care related to infection control guide lines to prevent urinary tract infections for 3 of 6 residents reviewed for bowel and bladder. (Residents 3, 18, and 29) Findings include: 1. During an observation of incontinence and catheter care for Resident 3 on 6/29/23 at 9:45 a.m., CNAs (Certified Nurse Aides) 5 and 6 had the washcloths and towels set up on the bedside table. They performed hand hygiene and applied gloves. The labial area and catheter tubing were cleaned by CNA 5 and the resident was rolled onto her left side. The catheter bag was lifted above the level of the bladder and held there as CNA 5 was able to take it and place it on the left side of the bed. CNA 6 performed hand hygiene and applied gloves. CNA 6 used a folded washcloth, using a four-corner method with no rinse soap applied to each corner. CNA 6 cleaned the left buttock with 13 swipes of the same area of the washcloth corner. She folded the corner over and with 31 swipes of the same area…
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 | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HARRISON COUNTY HOSPITAL | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 11/01/2020 |
| KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/11/2018 |
| BODNEY, STEPHEN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| BROWN, RICHARD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 06/15/1991 |
| CLUNIE, LISA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/08/2022 |
| HESS, JUDY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2016 |
| SHICKLES, LARRY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2022 |
| SHIREMAN, KATHY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2014 |
| WHITIS, HARRIS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| TRILOGY HEALTHCARE OF HANOVER LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2014 |
| ADAMS, THERESA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/24/2025 |
| MURPHY, SCOTT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/15/2025 |
| BARNEY, LEIGH | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/07/2025 |
| DAVIS, DAVID | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/26/2025 |
| WISEMAN, MARK | Individual | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2021 |
| AMERICAN HEALTHCARE REIT HOLDINGS LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| AMERICAN HEALTHCARE REIT INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2018 |
| CONTINENTAL MERGER SUB LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2021 |
| GAHC3 TRILOGY JV LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| GAHC4 TRILOGY JV LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2018 |
| PARAGON OUTPATIENT REHABILITATION SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| TRILOGY HEALTH SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2017 |
| TRILOGY HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/26/2025 |
| TRILOGY HEALTHCARE MASTER TENANT IV LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/26/2025 |
| TRILOGY INVESTORS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| TRILOGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| TRILOGY OPCO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/26/2025 |
| TRILOGY PRO SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/26/2025 |
| TRILOGY PROPCO FINANCE LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2017 |
| TRILOGY PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2017 |
| TRILOGY REAL ESTATE HANOVER LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2017 |
| TRILOGY REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| TRILOGY REIT HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2015 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 43 rows in the source record cover these 33 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
21 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 $774K 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.
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 155734. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-10, 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.