Morgantown Woods Of Journey
140 W Washington St, Morgantown, IN 46160 · Government - County · 39 certified beds · (812) 597-4418 Medicaid only — no Medicare
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- 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 an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Dec 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure 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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 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 1 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 | 33.8% | 11.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.9% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.5% | 0.4% | 0.9% | worse 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 | 60.2% | 25.2% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 2.8% | 0.0% | 0.1% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.7% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 35.0% | 11.9% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 42.9% | 23.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.7% | 95.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 3.6% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.3% | 23.3% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 49.0% | 13.6% | 17.1% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.07 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 3% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| 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 — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| 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 — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
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 39 beds and averages 36.4 residents a day — about 93% occupied, or roughly 3 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 3.06 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.56 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.16 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 2.75 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.18 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.66 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% 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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-03-28 · 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 provide adequate supervision to prevent a resident with a history of elopement from walking out the same emergency exit door on 3 consecutive days for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for elopement. Resident B was found 1.1 miles in an empty commercial lot by the police. (Resident B) The Immediate Jeopardy began on March 23, 2024, when Resident B exited the facility without staff supervision. The Administrator and the [NAME] President of Clinical Operations were notified of the Immediate Jeopardy, on March 27, 2024 at 10:45 a.m. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed, on 3/28/24 at 4:45 p.m., but noncompliance remained at the lower scope and severity of isolated, no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not Immediate Jeopardy. Findings include: On 3/26/24 at 7:02 a.m., Resident B was observed lying in bed resting. Resident B was not on 1-on-1 (continuous) supervision. During an interview on 3/26/24 at 7:05 a.m., CNA 1 (Certified Nursing Aide) indicated CNA 1 knew Resident B had left the faciity…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-11 · tag F0638 — isolatedAssure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
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 quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed 92 days after the previous MDS assessment for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for Resident Assessment. (Resident 2, Resident 24)Findings include: 1. On 3/10/26 at 11:43 a.m., Resident 2's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, diabetes mellitus and hypertension. The quarterly MDS assessment was dated 10/3/25. The clinical record lacked documentation of another assessment since 10/3/25. 2. On 3/10/26 at 11:50 a.m., Resident 24's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, schizoaffective disorder and anxiety. The quarterly MDS assessment was dated 10/3/25. The clinical record lacked documentation of another assessment since 10/3/25. During an interview on 3/11/26 at 12:04 p.m., the Corporate MDS nurse indicated Resident 2 and Resident 24's clinical record lacked documentation of a quarterly MDS assessment since 10/3/25. On 3/11/26 at 2:49 p.m., the Administrator provided the facility…
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 before2026-03-11 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set Assessments were accurate for 2 of 14 residents reviewed for comprehensive assessment. (Resident 5, Resident 29) Findings include:1. On 3/10/26 at 11:05 a.m., Resident 5's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, bipolar disorder and anxiety disorder. The Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR), dated 9/14/19, indicated the resident had serious mental illness. Current physician's orders indicated the resident was taking Torsemide (a diuretic) beginning on 7/12/25 and Depakote (an anticonvulsant) beginning on 7/11/25. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 8/11/25, indicated the resident did not have a serious mental illness and was not taking diuretic or anticonvulsant medications. During an interview on 3/11/26 at 1:50 p.m., the Director of Nursing indicated the 8/11/25 annual MDS assessment was incorrectly coded. 2. On 3/10/26 at 11:53 a.m., Resident 29's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-11 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident had an accurate Level I Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for PASARR. (Resident 24)Findings include: On 3/10/26 at 10:08 a.m., Resident 24's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, schizophrenia and anxiety. Resident 24's PASARR, dated 3/3/25, indicated no Level II required due to no serious mental illness, no mental health symptoms, and no antidepressants or any other mental health medication were prescribed. There was no evidence of a PASARR condition of a serious mental health condition. If changes occur or new information refutes these findings, a new screen must be submitted. Resident 24's admission date was 3/31/25 with the diagnosis of schizophrenia and a diagnosis date of anxiety was 4/17/25. The Order Summary Report dated 3/11/26 indicated the following:- Buspirone (antianxiety medication) 15 milligrams (mg) give a 0.5 tablet twice a day for anxiety, start date 1/9/26. - Paroxetine (antidepressant medication)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-11 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan related to noncompliance for 1 of 14 residents reviewed for care plans. (Resident 39)Findings include:On 3/9/26 at 2:58 p.m., Resident 39's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), hypertension, dementia, diabetes mellitus with circulatory complications, and heart failure. A Physician's Order, dated 6/2/24, indicated the resident was prescribed a 2,000 cc (cubic centimeters; equivalent to 1 milliliter) fluid target goal, with 480 cc at breakfast, 480 cc at lunch, 480 cc at dinner, 120 cc each shift, and 120 cc at bedtime. The resident's progress notes indicated the following: - On 12/8/25 at 2:42 p.m., the resident had frothy sputum and asked for 8-10 mugs of ice in one shift. He was educated he was not to have more than 2 mugs of ice per shift. - A Dietitian Evaluation, dated 12/29/25, indicated the resident did not adhere to his prescribed fluid restriction diet and occasionally consumed in excess of 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 · D2025-12-17 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from physical abuse when a male resident punched another male resident in the face for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse. (Resident B, Resident C) Findings include:On 12/17/25 at 8:14 a.m., the Administrator provided a copy of a facility reportable incident, dated 12/1/25 at 6:05 p.m. A review of the facility reportable incident indicated Resident B had been agitated the entire day and displayed verbal and physical aggression toward staff. Resident C had been experiencing an episode of psychosis, had not been easily redirected, and had displayed numerous psychotic behaviors over the previous several days. Staff observed Resident B make contact with Resident C's face with a closed fist.During an interview on 12/17/25 at 8:23 a.m., Qualified Medication Aide (QMA) 1 indicated, on 12/1/25 at approximately 6:00 p.m., she walked to the front of the facility near the kitchen and heard a loud noise. When she looked in the direction of the noise, QMA 1 witnessed Resident C sitting on a bench…
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 · F2025-04-09 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the sanitation bucket in the kitchen was at the correct level required for 1 of 1 sanitation bucket reviewed during the kitchen initial tour. This has the potential to affect 35 of 35 residents served from the kitchen. Findings include: During the initial kitchen tour on 4/7/25 at 10:15 a.m., the Assistant Dietary Manager tested the sanitizing solution in the sanitation bucket on the three compartment sink. She used the test strip and dipped the strip in the sanitizing solution. She read the test strip color to the color chart on the bottle which indicated it was 170. She was unsure what color on the test strip bottle, the test strip should of been. On 4/7/25 at 10:36 a.m., the Assistant Dietary Manager indicated the sanitizing solution was low. It should of been 272-700. On 4/9/25 at 4:15 p.m., the Regional Registered Dietician provided the facility's policy, The Sanitizing Buckets, revised 3/31/25, and indicated it was the policy currently being used by the facility. A review of the policy indicated,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-04-09 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure 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 4 of 12 residents reviewed. The admission from location, daily use of limb restraints, anticoagulant medications, and prognosis were coded incorrectly. (Resident 35, Resident 27, Resident 18, Resident 1). Findings include: 1. Resident 35's clinical record was reviewed on 4/8/25 at 11:24 a.m. The diagnosis included, but was not limited to, Alzheimer's Disease. Resident 35's admission date was 1/15/25. A review of nursing progress notes indicated Resident 35 had been staying with his sister in another state but had recently moved back to this area to be closer to where his brother lived. Resident 35's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 1/28/25, indicated the resident had admitted from a nursing home. During an interview on 4/8/25 at 11:32 a.m., the Administrator indicated the resident had been living out of state with his sister prior to being admitted to the facility. During an interview on 4/8/25 at 1:58 p.m., the MDS Coordinator indicated 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 · D2025-04-09 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain resident's dignity while assisting residents with the meal for 2 of 2 dining observations. Staff stood while assisting the resident. (Resident 27) Findings include: During a dining room observation on 4/7/25 at 12:23 p.m. until 12:40 p.m., CNA 1 was observed to stand to the left of Resident 27 to assist the resident with the meal. CNA 1 then placed her hand on the forehead of Resident 27 to hold her head up while she placed a spoon in the resident's mouth. CNA 1 did not talk with Resident 27, she was observed to talk with other staff members while they assisted residents during the noon meal. During an observation on 4/8/25 at 12:20 p.m., Resident 27 was observed eating with assistance of the Activity Director (AD). The AD was observed to be standing in front of the resident while assisting with the meal. On 4/8/25 at 1:39 p.m., Resident 27's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, dementia and psychosis (when people lose some contact with reality). 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 · D2025-04-09 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 communicate the resident's choice of advance directive to the staff responsible for the resident's care for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for Advance Directive. (Resident 186) Findings include: On [DATE] at 2:28 p.m., Resident 186's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, cerebral infarction (stroke), left side hemiplegia (paralysis on one side), and schizophrenia. Resident 186's admission date was [DATE]. The clinical record lacked documentation of the Indiana Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST) form. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:55 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DNS) indicated Social Services would complete the POST form on admission, the nurse practitioner would review and sign, and then scan the POST form into the electronic health record (EHR) with a copy going in a binder at the nurse's station. The DNS could not locate the POST form in the EHR. With the DNS, the binder at 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 · Dcited before2025-04-09 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 protect the residents right to be free from physical restraints for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for restraints. Documentation of re-evaluation of the need for restraints was not completed. (Resident 27) Findings include: On 4/7/25 at 11:35 a.m., Resident 27 was observed sitting in a Broda chair awake in the hallway with leg straps over both legs to prevent her from getting out of the chair. On 4/7/25 at 2:40 p.m., Resident 27 was observed sitting in a Broda chair asleep in her room with leg straps over both legs to prevent her from getting out the chair. On 4/8/25 at 9:32 a.m., Resident 27 was observed sitting in a Broda chair asleep in her room with leg straps over both legs to prevent her from getting out of the chair On 4/8/25 at 10:00 a.m., Resident 27 observed sitting in a Broda chair in her room. Two patient care staff members released and repositioned the leg straps at that time. On 4/9/25 at 11:08 a.m., Resident 27 observed sitting in a Broda chair asleep in her room with leg straps over both legs to…
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 · D2025-04-09 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide 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 given to the resident and resident's representative for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalization. (Resident 8, Resident 19). Findings include: 1. On 4/8/25 at 2:00 p.m., Resident 8's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and heart failure. Resident 8's progress notes, dated 1/17/25 at 7:50 a.m., indicated Resident 8 was to go to the emergency room due to resident chest x-ray results indicated possible pneumonia. The SNF/NF (skilled nursing facility/nursing facility) to Hospital Transfer form, dated 1/17/25 at 7:30 a.m., indicated Resident 8 was transferred to the hospital. The progress notes and transfer form lacked documentation of a written notification of the transfer and discharge was given the resident or the resident's representative. 2. On 4/8/25 at 2:19 p.m., Resident 19's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-07-02 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 protect the residents right to be free from physical restraints for 3 of 5 residents reviewed for restraints. Documentation of releasing the restraint and repositioning was not completed and informed consent for the use of restraints was not completed prior to placing the resident in restraints. (Resident 3, Resident 16, Resident 27) Findings include: 1. On 6/26/24 at 2:11 p.m., Resident 16 was observed sitting in a broda chair asleep in the hallway with lap straps around her legs to prevent her from getting out of the chair. On 6/28/24 at 9:10 a.m., Resident 16 was observed sitting in the broda chair asleep in the hallway with leg straps around her legs to prevent her from getting out of the chair. On 6/28/24 at 10:24 a.m., Resident 16 was observed sitting in the broda chair asleep in her room with leg straps around her legs to prevent her from getting out of the chair. On 6/28/24 at 11:29 a.m., Resident 16 was observed sitting in the broda chair asleep in her room with leg straps around her legs to prevent…
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 · D2024-07-02 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 residents were free from unnecessary medications for 1 of 5 residents reviewed. As needed antipsychotic medications were prescribed for longer than 14 days, gradual dose reductions (GDR) were not completed, and antipsychotic medications did not have an adequate diagnosis. (Resident 3) Findings include: During an observation on 6/27/24 at 9:49 a.m., Resident 3 was observed sitting upright in a broda chair with lower limb restrains in place. The resident repeatedly shouted, Come here!, in a loud and intelligible voice. On 6/27/24 at 10:17 a.m., Resident 3's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Alzheimer's disease, personal history of traumatic brain injury, insomnia, and anxiety. A 5/9/24 physician's order indicated the resident was prescribed olanzapine (antipsychotic medication) 2.5 milligrams, two times a day, related to Alzheimer's disease and prochlorperazine maleate (antiemetic and antipsychotic medication) 1 tablet by mouth every six hours as needed for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2024-07-02 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the daily posted nurse staffing reflected the actual hours worked by staff for 5 of 5 days of daily posted nurse staffing reviewed. Findings include: On 6/26/24 at 11:42 a.m., the Posted Nurse Staffing was observed. The Posted Nurse Staffing lacked the actual hours worked. On 6/27/24 at 10:26 a.m., the Posted Nurse Staffing was observed. The Posted Nurse Staffing lacked the actual hours worked. On 6/28/24 at 9:28 a.m., the Posted Nurse Staffing was observed. The Posted Nurse Staffing lacked the actual hours worked. On 7/1/24 at 10:49 a.m., the Posted Nurse Staffing was observed. The Posted Nurse Staffing lacked the actual hours worked. On 7/2/24 at 10:20 a.m., the Posted Nurse Staffing was observed. The Posted Nurse Staffing lacked the actual hours worked. During an interview on 7/2/24 at 11:37 a.m., the Clinical Support Nurse indicated the facility should be including actual hours worked on the staffing sheet and be updated the following day to reflect the actual hours worked by licensed staff. They indicated 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.
“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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in IN
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 15E683. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-11, 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.