Avalon Village
200 Kingston Cir, Ligonier, IN 46767 · For profit - Corporation · 67 certified beds · (260) 894-7131 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — 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
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
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 | 5.4% | 11.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.0% | 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 | 0.5% | 1.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 18.8% | 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 | 4.5% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.9% | 11.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.8% | 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 | 4.7% | 3.6% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.6% | 23.3% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.3% | 13.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.9% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.7% | 79.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.86 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.68 | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 39% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.02 | 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 67 beds and averages 61.4 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.15 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.549 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.01 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.53 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.40 on weekdays — 26% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.61 to 0.40 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% 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 · Dcited before2026-02-25 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medical records were complete and accurately reflected the resident's clinical status for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident E). Findings include:On 2/25/26 at 11:56 A.M., Resident E's record was reviewed. Diagnoses included end-stage kidney disease with dependence on renal dialysis, stage 4 pressure wound to the sacrum, and history of multiple type cancers. He was alert, oriented and able to make daily decisions as well as healthcare decisions for himself. A care plan, dated 7/23/25, indicated Resident E had dermatitis with a raised lesion on his left lower extremity suspicious for cancer. He was diagnosed with Lichenoid Keratosis (benign skin lesion) and treated with chemotherapy cream for 4 weeks. Interventions included to assess and document the skin condition weekly and as needed; and observe for signs of infection. A dermatology note, dated 10/9/25, indicated the resident had been seen for a non-healing lesion to his left lower extremity. At his appointment, the area around the lesion was numbed and with a…
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 · D2024-11-06 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure nephrostomy care was provided for 2 of 2 residents reviewed (Resident 5 and Resident 41). Findings include: 1. Resident 5's record was reviewed on 11/1/24 at 10:51 AM. Diagnoses included chronic kidney disease and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. Resident 5's Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated Resident 5's Quarterly Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 15 (no cognitive impairment). The MDS indicated Resident 5 had an indwelling urinary catheter. A physician order, dated 3/14/22, indicated the nephrostomy urine collection bags were to be changed monthly and as needed. A physician order, dated 7/29/22, indicated the nephrostomy tubes should be irrigated with 10 milliliters of normal saline every shift. A physician order, dated 10/2/24, indicated nephrostomy output should be recorded every shift. Resident 5's physician orders did not include directions for cleansing the nephrostomy tube sites or…
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 · D2024-11-06 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure medication disposition guidelines were followed for 1 of 5 residents reviewed (Resident 11). Findings include: During medication pass observation on 11/1/24 at 9:07 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) 3 prepared medication for Resident 11. During the preparation, RN 3 dropped a duloxetine 60 mg capsule on top of the medication cart. RN 3 picked up the capsule with ungloved fingers, placed it in the medication cup along with other medications due to be given that morning and administered them to Resident 11. During an interview on 11/1/24 at 9:25 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 2 indicated dropped pills should be placed in drug buster (a liquid chemical used to dissolve medications and render them unusable). She indicated drug buster should be available in the medication room. During an observation on 11/1/24 at 9:26 AM, LPN 2 opened all cabinets in the medication room and no drug buster was found. The 300-hall medication cart was inspected…
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 before2024-11-06 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a wound assessment was accurately recorded for 1 of 11 residents reviewed (Resident 15). Findings include: During a wound care observation on 11/4/24 at 9:41 AM, Resident 15 was observed lying on his right side with a heavily padded heel boot secured with a Velcro closure. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 4 held Resident 15's foot up about 6 inches off the bed. LPN 5 removed Resident 15's heel boot. Resident 15 had a gauze dressing wrapped around his right foot covering his ankle and up to the base of his toes. The dressing was secured with a piece of tape dated 11/3/24. LPN 5 removed the dressing from his right ankle, placing it in a plastic bag on the bed next to his left leg and performed wound care, assessment and application of a new dressing. Resident 15's record was reviewed on 10/31/24 at 11:03 AM. Diagnoses included peripheral vascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic nephropathy, and essential hypertension.…
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 · D2024-11-06 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were implemented regarding hair restraint during wound care for of 1 of 11 residents reviewed (Resident 15). Findings include: During a wound care observation on 10/4/24 at 9:41 AM, Resident 15 was observed lying on his right side. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 4 held Resident 15's foot up about 6 inches off the bed while LPN 5 removed Resident 15's dressing from his right ankle, placing it in a plastic bag on the bed next to his left leg. LPN 5 leaned her head down to observe the wounds on the inner aspect of the right foot and ankle. LPN 5's shoulder length hair was not restrained and touched Resident 15's bedding and the top of the plastic bag containing the soiled dressing. LPN 5's hair touched the bedding and plastic bag during the loosening of a patch of HydroFera blue wound treatment (an antibacterial wound care application), during the cleansing of the wound, during the wound assessment, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-11 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were followed for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident J). Findings include: On 7/11/24 at 11:38 A.M., Resident J's record was reviewed. Diagnoses included dementia, Alzheimer's disease with late onset, and generalized anxiety disorder. A quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 5/14/24, indicated the resident had severely impaired cognition with fluctuating behaviors of inattentiveness and disorganized thinking. She had no verbal or physical behaviors and no rejection of care. She required maximal assistance with her activities of daily living. A care plan, revised 7/1/24, indicated Resident J was at risk for falls with a goal of reducing her fall risk factors to avoid significant fall related injuries. An intervention, dated 12/27/2022 was for 2 persons to assist with transfers via the hoyer mechanical lift. A physician order, dated 5/31/24, was for the resident to be transferred with the mechanical lift and assistance of 2 staff members. A Fall Event form,…
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 · D2023-11-16 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure an adaptive call light was available and within reach for 1 of 15 residents reviewed (Resident 30). Findings include: During an observation on 11/12/23 at 10:13 AM, Resident 30 was observed lying in bed in her room. Resident 30 had severe contractures of her bilateral upper arms. Her elbows were bent at a tight angle and her hands were in a tight fist position. Her hands were positioned near her face. Her call light cord was observed against the wall behind the bed. The call light activation handle was observed lying on the floor. The call light was observed to be a standard call light. Resident 30 indicated she could not reach her call light. During an interview on 11/12/23 at 10:35 AM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 4 indicated the call light should be within Resident 30's reach. CNA 4 placed the call light on resident's upper torso. When asked to have Resident 30 demonstrate activation of her call light, CNA 4 placed the call light…
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 · D2023-11-16 · 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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure self-determination of visitors for 2 of 15 residents reviewed (Resident 30 and Resident 35). Findings include: 1) During an observation on 11/12/23 at 10:13 AM, Resident 30 was observed lying in bed in her room. Resident 35 was observed standing beside her bed speaking nonsensically to Resident 30 and dancing to music playing on her radio. Resident 30 had severe contractures of her bilateral upper arms. Her elbows were bent at a tight angle and her hands were in a tight fist position. Her hands were positioned near her face. Her call light cord was observed against the wall behind the bed. The call light activation handle was observed lying on the floor. Resident 30 indicated she could not reach her call light. Resident 30 indicated Resident 35 had not touched her, but she did not invite him into the room and his presence made her uncomfortable. She indicated he had been in her room the prior night also. Resident 30's record was…
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 · D2023-11-16 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure direct care staff was made aware of the identified triggers for a resident with a history of trauma for 1 of 2 residents reviewed. (Resident 48) Findings include: On 11/12/23 at 11:59 AM, Resident 48 was observed ambulating with bare feet in the hallway . Resident 48 had their arms folded tightly across their chest. Resident 48's lips were turned downward at the corners. Resident 48 grabbed a container of applesauce from a medication cart and clutched the container to their chest. A Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) was overheard stating the resident was combative. Resident 48's record was reviewed on 11/14/23 at 10:33 AM. Diagnoses included hallucinations, unspecified dementia with psychotic disturbances and anxiety disorder. Resident 48's current Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated Resident 48's communication was rarely or never understood. The MDS…
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 · D2023-11-16 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolatedEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure behavioral care plan interventions were followed for 1 of 5 residents reviewed. (Resident 35) Findings include: During an observation on 11/12/23 at 10:13 AM, Resident 30 was observed lying in bed in her room. Resident 35 was observed standing beside her bed speaking nonsensically to Resident 30 and dancing to music playing on her radio. Resident 35 placed Resident 30's trash can on top of her overbed table and pushed it around the room while mumbling non-sensical words. Resident 35 walked out to the hallway and grabbed a hoyer (a large mechanical device used to lift dependent residents) lift device that was sitting in the hallway and began pushing it down the hallway. An unidentified CNA approached Resident 35 and redirected him away from the hoyer lift device. Resident 35's record was reviewed on 11/15/23 at 1:31 PM. Diagnoses included Diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease with late onset, cognitive communication deficit, 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 · D2023-11-16 · tag F0745 — failed to provide medically-related social services — isolatedProvide medically-related social services to help each resident achieve the highest possible quality of life.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure resident specific, non-pharmacological interventions were attempted for 1 of 2 residents reviewed. (Resident 48) Findings include: On 11/12/23 at 11:59 AM, Resident 48 was observed ambulating in the hallway with bare feet. Resident 48 had their arms folded tightly across their chest. Resident 48's lips were turned downward at the corners. Resident 48 grabbed a container of applesauce from a medication cart and clutched the container to their chest. A Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) was overheard stating the resident was combative. Resident 48's record was reviewed on 11/14/23 at 10:33 AM. Diagnoses included hallucinations, unspecified dementia with psychotic disturbances and anxiety disorder. Resident 48's current Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated Resident 48's communication was rarely or never understood. The MDS indicated Resident 48 had exhibited…
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 · D2023-11-16 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a clean call light and a clean urinal were provided to 2 of 15 residents reviewed (Resident 1, and Resident 30). Findings include: 1) During an observation on 11/13/23 at 9:47 AM Resident 1 was lying in bed with a urinal on the left side of his bed. The urinal was a whitish translucent plastic with brown debris around the opening. A 3mm and a 2 mm round pieces of brown debris were noted on the side of the urinal. During an observation on 11/14/23 at 9:34 AM, the urinal was observed in about the same place beside the resident with the debris appearing unchanged from the previous day's observation. During an interview and observation on 11/14/23 at 9:37 AM Nurse Aide in Training (NAIT) 3 indicated Resident 1 could use his urinal, but staff managed the emptying task due to Resident 1's mobility limitations. NAIT 3 indicated the urinal at Resident 1's bedside was dirty and the staff member who emptied his urinal after the last use…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to AMERICAN SENIOR COMMUNITIES — 90 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 3.4 | +1.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
The other 89 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 89; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| HORN, BRENDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/01/2023 |
| BABCOCK, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/30/2020 |
| AMERICAN SENIOR COMMUNITIES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2012 |
| DICE, MARK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2023 |
| GROSS, MARY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/22/2021 |
| PECHIN, THOMAS | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/10/2026 |
| SLONE, JESSICA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/10/2026 |
| VAN CAMP, STEVEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 76% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $675K 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 155286. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-14, 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.