Meadow Lakes
200 Meadow Lake Dr, Mooresville, IN 46158 · For profit - Corporation · 137 certified beds · (317) 834-1791 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- about 24% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 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 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 4 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 8.8% | 11.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.2% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 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 | 29.8% | 25.2% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.4% | 3.9% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.7% | 11.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.1% | 23.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.1% | 95.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.7% | 3.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.1% | 23.3% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.9% | 13.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.6% | 79.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.5% | 22.2% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.3% | 10.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.91 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.56 | 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.
58.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 118 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 59.4% 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 69 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 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 47% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% 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 | 58.8%CMS range 48.7–66.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.1%CMS range 8.8–15.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 59.4% | 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 | 63.8% | 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 | 55.1% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 | 90.5% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.1% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.1%CMS range 3.3–10.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.92 | 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 137 beds and averages 123.4 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 14 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 3.52 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.05 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 3.08 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.70 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.65 to 0.41 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 42% is about the same as 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-01-10 · 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure services were provided to residents with dementia to prevent resident-to-resident altercations for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for dementia. (Resident C, Resident D) This deficient practice resulted in Resident D experiencing a fall and sustaining an acute fracture of the right upper arm bone with moderate displacement and rotation. Finding includes: During an interview on 1/9/24 at 10:30 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) and Executive Director indicated a physical altercation occurred on 1/5/24 between Resident D and Resident C on a secured unit. The DON indicated a stop sign was positioned across the threshold to the bedroom of Resident C and usually was effective to prevent Resident D from entering the room. The DON indicated Resident D, the victim, entered the bedroom of Resident C by traveling underneath the stop sign. The DON indicated Resident C was pulling on the right upper arm of Resident D to get Resident D out of her room when a physical therapist walked by and told Resident C not to pull…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-29 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
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 education in-services were completed for nursing staff for specific treatment care needs for 1 of 5 residents reviewed. (Resident B)Finding includes:The clinical record for Resident B was reviewed on 6/29/26 at 9:50 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, quadriplegia (a form of paralysis affecting all four limbs and the torso) and central cord syndrome at C4 (cervical vertebrae 4) of the cervical spinal cord. A Physician's Order, with a start date of 4/15/26 indicated, Transanal Irrigation [a water-based bowel management tool for bowel dysfunction] Special Instructions: Instill between 500 mL [milliliters] and 1000 mL of lukewarm water per irrigation session, titrating the volume to res [resident] tolerance and clinical response. Inflate balloon catheter with 1-2 pumps of air for retention. Do Not exceed 4 pumps per session. Document irrigation volume, frequency, balloon inflation amount, and any complications and indicated it was to be done once daily. During an interview on 6/29/26 at 12:39 p.m.,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-27 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment accurately reflected a resident's status for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident 8)Findings include:On 5/21/26 at 2:31 p.m., Resident 8's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Parkinson's disease (a disorder of the nervous system that affects movement and gets worse over time), psychotic disorder (severe mental disorders that cause abnormal thinking and perceptions), and dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities). A Review of the notice of PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review), dated 2/2/22, indicated, .Level I Outcome: Dementia/MI Exclusion. Rationale: A PASRR Level II evaluation is not required at this time.The Annual MDS assessment, dated 7/1/25, indicated the resident had a current PASARR Level II.During an interview with the Social Services Director on 5/26/26 at 11:29 a.m., she indicated the resident did not have a PASARR Level II.During an interview…
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 · D2025-03-18 · 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 self-medication administration assessment was completed for 1 of 1 random observations of medications left at the bedside. (Resident 71) Findings include: On 3/11/25 at 10:30 a.m., a medication cup with 1 large white tablet was observed on the bedside table of Resident 71. Resident 71 indicated it was her stomach medication and the nurses always left it for her to take after she had finished her meal. Resident 71's clinical record was reviewed on 3/11/25 at 11:30 a.m. The diagnosis included, but was not limited to, gastroesophageal reflux disease. The clinical record lacked documentation of a self-medication administration assessment. Current physician orders, dated 3/1/25 through 3/17/25, indicated Resident 71's medications included, but were not limited to, simethicone (for gas) tablet 125 milligrams 4 times a day. During an interview on 3/17/25 at 10:25 a.m., the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) indicated there had not been a self-medication administration assessment completed for Resident 71,…
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 before2025-03-18 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the Minimum Data Set assessment for a resident determined to have a Level II PASARR and a serious mental illness for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Resident Assessment. (Resident 62) Findings include: Resident 62's clinical record was reviewed on 3/18/25 at 11:00 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, anxiety, psychotic disorder with delusions and anorexia nervosa. A Level II PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) was completed in January 2023, and indicated the resident had a serious mental illness. The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 2/23/25, indicated No to Resident 62 having a Level II PASARR and no to the resident having a serious mental illness. During an interview on 3/18/25 at 10:35 a.m., the Social Services Assistant indicated the Significant Change MDS assessment, dated 2/23/25, for Resident 62 should have been coded Yes to having a Level II PASARR and Yes to the resident having a serious mental illness. On 3/18/25 at 1:20 p.m., the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-18 · 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
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff revised the comprehensive care plan for a resident with significant weight loss for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for nutrition. (Resident 47) Findings include: On 3/11/25 from 9:20 a.m. to 9:45 a.m.,. Resident 47 was observed in bed with breakfast on her tray and no food eaten. No staff were present with the resident. On 3/14/25 from 9:25 a.m. to 9:50 a.m., Resident 47 was observed in bed with breakfast on her tray and no food eaten. No staff were present with the resident. On 3/11/25 at 10:10 a.m. Resident 47's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, hemiplegia, adult failure to thrive, and unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition. The Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 3/10/25, indicated the resident had a five percent or more weight loss in the last month or weight loss of ten percent or more in the last 6 months. The Functional Assessment, dated 3/10/25, indicated the resident required supervision or touching assistance for eating. The Follow Up Nutrition…
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 · D2025-03-18 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide ADL's (Activities of Daily Living) for a dependent resident for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for ADL's. A resident was not shaved. (Resident 48) Findings include: On 3/11/25 at 10:19 a.m., Resident 48 was observed in her room with approximately half inch long whiskers on her chin. On 3/13/25 at 2:50 p.m., Resident 48 was observed in her room with approximately half inch long whiskers on her chin. At that time, Resident 48 wept and indicated having chin whiskers made her sad. She indicated staff used to shave her whiskers and she wished they did this more often, as it made her feel bad to have them on her chin. During an interview on 3/14/25 at 11:40 a.m., RN 1 indicated the resident needed her chin whiskers shaved. On 3/11/25 at 10:10 a.m., Resident 47's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, hemiplegia, adult failure to thrive, and unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition. The Functional Assessment, dated 3/10/25, indicated the resident required substantial 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 · D2024-12-12 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received adequate assistance to prevent a fall for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. (CNA in Training 1, Resident C) Finding includes: During an interview on 12/11/24 at 11:30 a.m., Resident E indicated on 11/28/24 at approximately 10:30 a.m., she observed a new CNA in Training (CNA in Training 1) attempting to transfer her roommate, Resident C, from her wheelchair to her bed. Resident E told CNA in Training 1 Resident C required 2 staff to transfer her. CNA in Training 1 told her she could transfer Resident C by herself. CNA in Training 1 attempted to move Resident C from Resident C's wheelchair but was unable to support her, and they both slid to the floor. CNA in Training 1 left the room and brought other staff to the room to help lift Resident C to her bed. She had not seen CNA in Training 1 since the incident. On 12/11/24 at 11:55 a.m., Resident E's clinical record was reviewed. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/13/24, indicated the Resident E had no cognitive…
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 · E2024-06-05 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the written notification required for a transfer and discharge was provided to the resident and the resident representative for 4 of 10 residents reviewed for hospitalization. (Resident 20, Resident 90, Resident 93, Resident 74) Findings include: 1. On 6/4/24 at 11:30 a.m., Resident 20's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage and dementia. Resident 20's progress notes indicated the resident was sent to the hospital on 3/13/24. The clinical record lacked documentation of written notification of the Notice of Transfer and Discharge forms having been provided to the resident representative. 2. On 5/29/24 at 11:50 a.m., Resident 90's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, sepsis and vascular dementia. Resident 90's progress notes indicated the resident was sent to the hospital on 5/5/24. The clinical record lacked documentation of written notification of the Notice of Transfer and Discharge forms having…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a urinary drainage bag was positioned off the floor to prevent infections for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for urinary catheters. (Resident 81) Findings include: On 5/29/24 at 10:43 a.m., Resident 81 was observed asleep in bed. A urinary drainage bag was observed to be touching the floor. On 5/30/24 at 9:59 a.m., Resident 81 was observed asleep in bed. A urinary drainage bag was observed to be touching the floor. On 5/31/24 at 10:45 a.m., Resident 81 was observed asleep in bed. A urinary drainage bag was observed to be touching the floor. On 6/3/24 at 9:43 a.m., Resident 81 was observed asleep in bed. A urinary drainage bag was observed to be touching the floor. On 6/3/24 at 11:02 a.m., Resident 81 was observed asleep in bed. A urinary drainage bag was observed to be touching the floor. Resident 81's clinical record was reviewed on 6/3/24 at 11:15 a.m. The diagnosis included, but was not limited to, obstructive and reflux uropathy due to neurogenic bladder. Physician orders, dated 5/5/24 through 6/5/24,…
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 · D2024-01-10 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide services in accordance with professional standards for 1 of 3 residents reviewed. Staff administered another resident's medication without a physician's order. (Resident E) Findings include: During an interview on 1/9/24 at 11:28 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated on 1/8/24 around 3:00 A.M., Registered Nurse 1 (RN 1) accidentally administered an oral dose of morphine concentrate to Resident E, who was not prescribed the medication. RN 1 was placed on suspension pending the results of the investigation. On 1/9/24 at 11:30 A.M., Resident E's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, senile degeneration of brain and Alzheimer's disease with late onset. The resident began hospice care on 1/4/24 for senile degeneration of the brain. The January 2024, Medication Administration Record (MAR) did not indicate the resident was administered morphine. During an interview on 1/9/24 at 3:06 P.M., the DON indicated a physician's order for a one-time administration of a 10 milligram…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to AMERICAN SENIOR COMMUNITIES — 90 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| DRUMMER, CARL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2017 |
| HANIFY, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2022 |
| HORN, BRENDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/01/2023 |
| LAZARD, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/29/2021 |
| MANTRAVADI, GEETA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/21/2021 |
| PAYNE, MONICA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 08/09/2021 |
| BABCOCK, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/30/2020 |
| CAINE, VIRGINIA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/10/1994 |
| HARRIS, LISA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/22/2003 |
| AMERICAN SENIOR COMMUNITIES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2009 |
| ANDRES, ANTHONY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/22/2021 |
| DICE, MARK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2023 |
| MCCALLUM, WILLIAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/05/2026 |
| NEWKIRK, MARIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/08/2021 |
| VAN CAMP, STEVEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 15 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.
This home reported $4.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 24% 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 155751. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-27, 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.