Westminster Village Muncie INC
5801 W Bethel Ave, Muncie, IN 47304 · Non profit - Corporation · 76 certified beds · (765) 288-2155 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 harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 27.0% | 11.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.7% | 5.5% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 6.9% | 0.4% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.6% | 1.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 6.6% | 25.2% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.9% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 27.0% | 11.9% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.5% | 23.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.2% | 95.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.9% | 3.6% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 34.6% | 23.3% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.0% | 13.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.1% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 76.2% | 79.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.6% | 22.2% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.0% | 10.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.83 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.48 | 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.
66.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 255 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 25.6% 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 90 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 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 44% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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 | 66.4%CMS range 59.4–72.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.8%CMS range 7.4–14.2 | 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 | 25.6% | 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 | 37.8% | 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 | 23.3% | 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 | 96.6% | 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 | 82.8% | 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 | 95.6% | 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 | 1.7% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.5% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.6%CMS range 3.5–9.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.03 | 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 76 beds and averages 58.5 residents a day — about 77% occupied, or roughly 18 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.35 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.90 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.49 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.99 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.49 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.02 to 0.62 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2026-05-13 · 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 food was served in a method to prevent possible cross contamination and/or foodborne illness for 56 of 56 residents who ate meals served in the skilled unit facility kitchen. Findings include: During a lunch meal service, on 5/6/26 from 11:35 a.m. to 11:40 a.m., the following food service concerns were observed:Cook 5 was wearing disposable gloves. Using her gloved hands, she touched resident meal tickets, clean dishes, scoops, tongs, sweat potato fries, and a sandwich. She repeated this process touching meal tickets, the outside of the bread bag, fries, sandwich wraps, and plate rims. She left the steam table area, and using the same soiled gloves, she took a hot dog out of bag and placed it on an electric griddle. She returned to the food service line, and using her soiled gloved hands, touched meal tickets, plates, sweet potato fries, and wrap sandwiches. She then went over to the grill, and with the same soiled gloves, touched the wrapper on a bag of hot dog buns, removed the bun from the bag, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY A. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) and utilize proper hand hygiene during suprapubic catheter (urinary catheter inserted into the bladder via the abdomen) care for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for urinary catheters. (Resident 17)B. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to properly handle medications utilizing infection prevention and control measures during medication administration for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for medication administration. (Resident 37 and Resident 40)Findings include:A1. During an observation, on 5/6/26 at 11:38 a.m., Resident 17 was in his bed. The urinary catheter drainage bag and tubing were directly against the floor. An EBP sign was hung on the right side of the doorway above the canister of personal protective equipment. The sign indicated everyone must clean their hands before entering and when leaving the room. Providers and staff must wear gloves and a gown for high-contact care…
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 · E2025-06-18 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to have a system in place to respond to and promptly resolve resident council concerns. Finding includes: Review of the facility's Resident Council Minutes, on 6/16/25 at 9:36 a.m., included the following Resident Council concerns: On 4/17/25 at 10:30 am., six residents attended the resident council meeting. A concern in the minutes under dietary indicated the hot foods not. The Resident Council Action Form was left blank. The form had areas for the reported concern, date the form was due back to resident council, staff response and action plan, and staff signature and title. On 5/15/25 at 11:00 a.m., seven residents attended the resident council meeting. The Old Business section was left blank. A concern under dietary indicated some residents reported the food was cold sometimes. The minutes lacked a Resident Council Action Form. During an interview on 6/16/25 at 10:03 a.m., Life Enrichment Director 12 indicated she did not have additional follow-up/action information to provide regarding the concerns brought to her…
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 · D2025-06-18 · tag F0628 — isolatedProvide the required documentation or notification related to the resident's needs, appeal rights, or bed-hold policies.
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to provide bed hold policy and transfer/discharge notifications to the resident/representative for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalizations. (Residents 1 & 17) Findings include: 1. Resident 1's clinical record was reviewed on 6/17/25 at 11:41 a.m. Diagnoses included acute on chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure, hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, and hypertension. A 4/6/25, quarterly, Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment indicated the resident was cognitively intact. A 5/31/25, discharge, MDS assessment indicated the resident discharged with a return anticipated. A 5/31/25, progress note indicated the resident complained of pain in the right upper and lower quadrant of her chest, right side of her back, and under her right shoulder. The pain was getting worse and the resident requested to be sent to the emergency room. The ambulance arrived and all parties were notified. The clinical record lacked indication of whether a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-18 · 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 staff competency regarding narcotic administration and reconciliation for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for narcotic use. The deficiency had potential to impact 11 residents who received narcotic pain medication from the unit medication cart. (Resident 5 and Resident 263) Findings include: During a medication storage observation with LPN 6 on 6/13/25 at 12:58 p.m., the 50s hallway narcotic log indicated Resident 5 received as needed (PRN) doses of tramadol (a narcotic pain medication) on the following dates: 6/4/25 at 10:00 p.m. 6/5/25 at 9:00 p.m. 6/12/25 at 8:30 p.m., and signed by RN 7 6/6/25 at 8:00 p.m. 6/7/25 at 7:00 p.m. 6/8/25 at 7:12 p.m. 6/9/25 at 8:00 p.m. 6/10/25 at 7:30 p.m. 6/11/25 at 6:30 p.m. 6/12/25 at 8:30 p.m. and signed by RN 8 Resident 263 received PRN doses of oxycodone (narcotic pain medication) at the following dates and times: 5/28/25 at 9:44 p.m., 6/7/25 at 8:53 p.m., 6/9/25 at 12:30 a.m., and signed out by RN 8 and on 6/5/25 at 10:34 p.m., signed out by RN 7. Resident 5's clinical record was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-18 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure shift to shift narcotic reconciliations were completed to account for controlled medications for 2 of 5 medication carts reviewed for medication storage. ([NAME] Court Unit and Bristol Court Unit) This deficient practice had the potential to affect 21 out of 57 residents who resided in the facility and received controlled medications from [NAME] Court Unit and Bristol Court Unit medication carts. Findings include: 1. During a medication storage observation, accompanied by RN 10 on 6/13/25 at 11:40 a.m., the Narcotic Count Log for [NAME] Court Unit medication cart was reviewed and lacked a count or off-going staff signature when RN 10 took over the cart at the beginning of his shift at 6:00 a.m. on 6/13/25. During an interview on 6/13/25 at 11:51 a.m., RN 10 indicated a shift to shift count had not been completed at the beginning of his shift because the off-going nurse left before the count was completed. Counts and signatures of…
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 before2025-06-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) during catheter care for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for EBP. (Resident 255) Finding includes: During an observation on 6/11/25 at 3:49 PM, EBP signage was observed to the left of resident 255's door and indicated the following: Stop. Enhanced barrier precautions. Everyone must: clean their hands, including before entering and when leaving the room. Providers and staff must also: wear gloves and a gown for the following high contact resident care activities. Dressing, bathing/showering, transferring, providing hygiene, changing briefs or assisting with toileting, device care or use: central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube, tracheostomy, wound care: any skin opening requiring a dressing. During a catheter care observation on 6/17/25 at 1:17 PM, LPN 5 performed hand hygiene and donned gloves, but not a gown prior to entry into Resident 255's room. She knocked on the door, announced herself, and explained the procedure to the resident. LPN 5 prepared wet and dry wash…
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 · D2024-05-28 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide safe and secure storage of medications for 17 of 17 residents on the Bristol Unit and to label a multi-use medication vial with an open date for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for medication storage. (Resident 14) During an observation on 5/22/24 at 2:31 p.m., a medication cart was unattended and unlocked in a common area of the unit. At 2:34 p.m., RN 5 approached the cart and confirmed the cart was unlocked. RN 5 indicated it should be locked and contained medications for the residents on the unit only. During a medication administration observation for Resident 14, on 5/23/24 at 9:58 a.m., QMA 6 indicated an open vial of prescription eye drops, Latanoprost 0.005% solution (for glaucoma), did not have an open date on it, but should be dated. She was unsure which types of prescription eyedrops were supposed to be dated upon opening. A current facility policy titled LTC Facility's Pharmacy Services and Procedures Manual, revised on 7/21/22, was provided by the Health Operations Administrator on 5/28/24 at…
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 · D2024-05-28 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement the facility's pneumococcal vaccines policy utilizing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines and failed to offer appropriate pneumococcal vaccinations for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for vaccinations. (Resident 49) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 49 was reviewed on 5/22/24 at 2:39 p.m. Diagnosis included hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, unspecified chronic atrial fibrillation, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Resident 49 was over [AGE] years of age. Resident 49's current vaccination record indicated she received the Pneumococcal Conjugate vaccine (PCV) 13 on 3/18/15 and the Pneumococcal Polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV) 23 on 5/22/18. The clinical record lacked indication of any other offered pneumococcal vaccinations. During an interview, on 5/28/24 at 10:10 a.m., RN 3 indicated she only utilized the Children and Hoosiers Immunization Registry Program (CHIRP) for all new residents. The CHIRP…
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 before2024-03-06 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure employees were trained in and knowledgeable of the facility elopement policy and protocol, resulting in a cognitively impaired resident being unsupervised outdoors for 17 minutes (QMA 16). Findings include: Resident B's clinical record was reviewed on 3/5/24 at 10:23 a.m. Diagnoses included unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety. Her physician orders included check placement of the wanderguard to her left ankle twice daily and check motion sensor for placement by her door and to make sure it was on and worked properly. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 1/10/24, indicated she was severely cognitively impaired. She had a current care plan for psychosocial well-being, as she had the potential to exhibit wandering and exit seeking behaviors (1/12/24). Her interventions included document in the progress notes the intensity,…
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 · C2025-06-18 · tag F0574 — widespreadThe resident has the right to receive notices in a format and a language he or she understands.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the name and contact information for the State Long Term Care Ombudsman was posted and readily available for the resident and visitors. This deficiency had the potential to affect 57 of 57 residents in the facility. Finding includes: During an observation on 6/16/25 at 12:18 p.m., a tour of the skilled areas of the facility was completed. The State Ombudsman information was not posted and readily available for residents and visitors. During an observation of the nursing home units of the facility, on 6/16/25 at 1:24 p.m., accompanied by the DON and Administrator 2, Administrator 2 indicated the State Ombudsman contact information was not located and should have been posted for the residents' access. During an interview on 6/17/25 at 10:28 a.m., Administrator 2 indicated the facility did not have a policy regarding posting of resident advocacy numbers. They followed the Indiana Department of Health guidelines regarding posting of advocacy numbers. 3.1-4(j)(3)
“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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| FIRST MERCHANTS BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2016 |
| ABBS, JAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| CHILDS, JERALD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| CRAIG, JANICE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| DAWSON, ANDREW | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| ERVIN, MARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| FARQUHER, RONALD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| FEICK, DEBBIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| GALLIHER, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| KIRKPATRICK-SIKORA, MAGI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| LITTLER, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| MATCHETT, LOREN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| SCHERRER, ERIC | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/01/2024 |
| CRUTCHER, MARY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/01/2024 |
| JONES, DUSTIN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/01/2024 |
| FORVIS MAZARS LLP | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2023 |
| BARNES, DENNIG & CO., LTD | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| PARAGON OUTPATIENT REHABILITATION SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2024 |
| HILTZ, JEFFREY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 22 rows in the source record cover these 19 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.
4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 155170. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-13, 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.