Autumn Woods Health Campus
2911 Green Valley Rd, New Albany, IN 47150 · For profit - Corporation · 91 certified beds · (812) 941-9893 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- CMS ownership filings flag it as owned by a private-equity firm or REIT — a category that performs worse on staffing on average, though that average says nothing certain about this home, and CMS filings undercount these ties, so other homes here may have them unflagged (what the research actually shows →)
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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 6.4% | 11.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.7% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 45.8% | 25.2% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.8% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.0% | 11.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.4% | 23.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.2% | 3.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 12.9% | 23.3% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.1% | 13.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.9% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.6% | 79.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.8% | 22.2% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 2.7% | 10.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.47 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.81 | 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.
59.6% 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 282 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 70.3% 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 138 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 0.32 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 53% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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 | 59.6%CMS range 54.4–66.4 | 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 | 16.2%CMS range 12.7–19.5 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than 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 | 70.3% | 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 | 69.6% | 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 | 65.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.5% | 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 | 1.6% | 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 | 8.4%CMS range 6.2–11.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.28 | 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 91 beds and averages 78.5 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 12 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 3.478 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.76 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.72 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 2.98 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.68 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.81 to 0.64 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 39% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-05-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure glucometers (portable device used to measure blood sugar levels) were cleaned per manufacturer guidelines for infection control when obtaining blood sugar readings for 3 of 3 residents observed. (Residents 11, 39, and 34) Findings include:1. During an observation, on 4/29/26 at 8:14 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 4 obtained Resident 11's blood sugar reading, using the glucometer. After the resident's blood sugar reading was completed, LPN 4 returned to the medication cart with the glucometer. She obtained the bleach wipe, and the glucometer was wrapped in the bleach wipe for two minutes, without cleaning or wiping down the glucometer. The LPN removed the glucometer from the wipe and placed the glucometer on the bottom of the top drawer of the medication cart to dry. There was no barrier placed on the drawer bottom. During an interview, on 4/29/26 at 8:20 a.m., LPN 4 indicated she cleaned the glucometer for two minutes, then let it dry. 2. During an observation, on 4/29/26 at 11:30 a.m., LPN 6…
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 before2026-05-01 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with Urinary Tract Infection (UTIs) was provided proper management of the urinary catheter drainage system by maintaining the drainage system off the floor for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for bowel and bladder. (Resident 25) Findings include:During an observation, on 4/28/26 at 10:02 a.m., Resident 25's indwelling urinary catheter and tubing were lying flat directly on the floor. The tubing was coiled up around the catheter. The resident was lying asleep in bed. During an observation, on 4/30/26 at 9:20 a.m., the resident was in bed and the resident's indwelling urinary catheter was hanging on the bedrail with the bottom slightly off the floor. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 7 lifted the resident's catheter bag up for the resident to roll onto her right side and placed it onto the resident's bed. The indwelling urinary catheter bag slid from the bed, and the LPN attempted to catch it. The LPN lifted the resident's indwelling urinary catheter bag above the level of the resident's bladder 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 · D2025-11-06 · 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 ensure residents (Resident D and Resident E) plan of care accurately reflected documented behaviors for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. Findings include: 1.The clinical record for Resident D was reviewed on 11/6/25 at 10:50 a.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Alzheimer's disease, dementia and psychotic disorder with delusions. The progress note, dated 9/5/25 at 1:11 p.m., indicated the resident had been resistive to care, attempted to hit staff and grab at the staff's wrists while staff attempted to dress him.The progress note, dated 9/18/25 at 4:39 p.m., indicated the resident had been aggressive with staff. The resident punched a staff member in the face and the punched another staff member in the stomach.The progress note, dated 9/24/25 at 9:36 a.m., indicated the psychiatric nurse practitioner had given an order to increase the resident's Rexulti (medication used for agitation) due to increased agitation and physical aggression towards the staff.The progress note,…
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 · E2025-04-04 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate interventions were implemented to prevent falls for 5 of 7 residents reviewed for accidents. (Residents 73, 57, 51, 55, and 12) Findings include: 1. During an interview, on 4/1/25 at 10:17 a.m., Resident 73's family member indicated when the resident was in a room on the Legacy Lane Unit, while being transferred from the wheelchair to the bed, a fall occurred. A lift chair was supposed to have been used and the Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) decided to transfer Resident 73 from the shower to the bed in a wheelchair. There were no peddles on the wheelchair and the resident's feet dropped to the floor. When the resident's feet hit the floor, the resident fell forward from the wheelchair and the resident's face hit the floor. The wheelchair had pedals available since admission, but they were taken off by the staff. During an observation of the resident, on 4/3/25 at 10:54 a.m., the resident was sitting in a wheelchair in…
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 · D2025-04-04 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified in a timely manner for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for a significant change in condition. (Resident 35) Findings include: The record for Resident 35 was reviewed on 4/3/25 at 11:23 a.m. The residents's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, pleural effusion, acute respiratory syncytial virus, hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, endocarditis, dementia, cardiomegaly, and edema. The physician's order, dated 12/30/24, indicated the resident was prescribed furosemide 20 milligrams (mg) once a day for bilateral lower extremity edema. The Quarterly Minimal Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 3/3/25, indicated the resident was moderately cognitively intact. The nurse's note, dated 12/25/24 at 3:07 p.m., indicated Resident 35 presented with pitting edema to the bilateral lower extremities. The left leg was observed to be worse with 2+ edema (4mm of depression rebounding in 15 seconds or less) and the right lower extremity had +1 edema. The resident complained of mild pain to the lower…
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 before2025-04-04 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a history of Urinary Tract Infection (UTIs) was provided proper management of the urinary catheter drainage system by maintaining the drainage system off the floor for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for bowel and bladder. (Resident 51) Findings include: During an observation, on 4/3/25 between 11:45 a.m. and 12:22 p.m., Resident 51 was sitting in the Legacy Lane Dining Room in her wheelchair. Resident 51's urinary catheter bag was two thirds full of urine which was sitting on the floor. The tubing was also lying on the floor with yellow urine and sediment in the tubing. The resident's feet were stepping on the tubing as the resident moved the wheelchair forward and backward. The resident began rolling away from the table with the catheter bag and tubing dragging the floor. The catheter bag could be heard scrapping the floor as it was dragging on the floor. There were 8 to 10 staff members in the dining room during the observation. During an observation, on 4/4/25 at 8:15 a.m., Resident 51…
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 · D2025-04-04 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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's weight was verified for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for nutrition and hydration. (Resident 35) Findings include: The record for Resident 35 was reviewed on 4/3/25 at 11:23 a.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, pleural effusion, acute respiratory syncytial virus, hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, endocarditis, dementia, cardiomegaly, and edema. The physician's orders, dated 12/30/24, indicated the resident was prescribed furosemide 20 milligrams (mg) once a day for bilateral lower extremity edema. The Quarterly Minimal Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 3/3/25, indicated the resident was moderately cognitively intact. The care plan, dated 3/31/25, indicated the resident had experienced significant weight loss. The interventions included, but were not limited to, offer the resident encouragement and assistance with eating, weights as ordered by the physician, and provide diet, supplements, medications, adaptive equipment, and snacks as ordered. The nurse's note, dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-22 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure showers were provided consistently for 4 of 4 residents reviewed for ADL (Activities of Daily Living) care. (Residents F, C, D, K) 1. The record for Resident F was reviewed on 2/21/24 at 11:03 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immobility syndrome, morbid obesity, muscle weakness, abnormalities of gait and mobility, difficulty walking, and spinal stenosis. The care plan, dated 5/16/22, indicated the resident required staff assistance to complete ADL tasks completely. The Profile Care Guide care plan, dated 5/20/22, indicated the resident received showers on Tuesdays and Fridays and used a full body mechanical lift for transfers. The Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 1/26/24, indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired, had limited range of motion in both of his lower extremities, and was dependent on a helper for showering and bathing. The shower…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-22 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
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 there were enough staff to assist residents with activities of daily living in a timely manner related to bathing, incontinence care, and falls related to sufficient staffing. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 79 of 79 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: During an interview on 2/20/24 at 9:30 a.m., the DON (Director of Nursing) indicated staffing was based on the budget and acuity. They would then adjust as needed. If there were call-ins, they attempted to get coverage, but if they were not able to fill the shift, then leadership management would cover the shift, even if it was the CNA (Certified Nurse Aide) position. They haven't had any more than the usual call outs by staff. She indicated the following staff were scheduled: - Legacy Lane (200 and 300 Halls), were staffed with two nurses and three CNAs for both day and night shifts. They usually staffed twelve-hour shifts, but some staff worked eight-hour shifts. - The 100 Hall was staffed with one nurse and one…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-22 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a sanitary manner for 5 of 5 observations. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 79 of 79 residents currently residing at the facility. Findings include: 1. During the initial tour of the kitchen on 2/19/24 between 9:25 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., while in the presence of the Assistant Director of Food Service, the following concerns were observed: - The knife holder next to the stove had a film of moderate dust across the top where the knives entered. - The reach in freezer in the dry storage - inside the door frame at the bottom corner there were large yellow food particles; the bottom shelf of the 3 door unit had a heavy soil of tan and yellow food crumbs and green beans. - The reach-in freezer in the kitchen - the bottom shelf of both sides had a moderate amount of crumbs on it. - Both of the reach in freezers and reach in refrigerator had moderate smears and streaks down the stainless steel doors. - The tilt skillet - both sides, edges and floor on both…
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 · D2024-02-22 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
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 post-dialysis monitoring of a dialysis access site for 1 of 1 resident's reviewed for dialysis. (Resident D) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident D was reviewed on 2/21/24 at 08:46 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, infection and inflammatory reaction due to other cardiac and vascular devices, implants and grafts, hypertensive chronic kidney disease with stage 5 chronic kidney disease or end stage renal disease, and dependence on renal dialysis. The Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 12/19/23, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The care plan, initiated on 9/8/21, indicated the resident had renal failure resulting in a need for dialysis. The interventions included, but were not limited to, assess access site for signs of localized infection such as swelling, redness, pain or tenderness, heat at the area, purulent drainage, bloody/malodorous dialysate and observe catheter site per orders. The Registered Dietician dialysis note, dated 2/13/24 at 3:49 p.m.,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-22 · tag F0744 — failed to care for residents with dementia — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with dementia.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the monitoring and safety of residents with dementia for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for falls. (Residents B and J). Findings include: 1. The record for Resident B was reviewed on 2/20/24 at 1:40 p.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, a traumatic subdural hemorrhage without loss of consciousness, injury of the face, second degree atrioventricular block, epilepsy, dementia, contusion of part of the head, and repeated falls. The care plan, dated 9/28/22 and revised on 12/29/23, indicated the resident had a traumatic brain injury with a subdural hematoma related to a fall. The interventions included, but were not limited to; dated 9/28/22, allow sufficient time to complete self-care, encourage maximum participation of the resident during self-care activities, monitor for the presence of pain or intolerance during self-care activities, praise the resident for efforts, provide adequate rest periods between self-care activities, provide a private, non-distracting environment for self-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 · D2024-02-22 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
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 did not receive a psychotropic medication in an excessive dosage without adequate documentation for its use for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident 30) Finding includes: The record for Resident 30 was reviewed on 2/20/24 at 1:55 p.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Alzheimer's disease; dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety; depression; and psychotic disorder with delusions due to known physiological condition. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/28/23, indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment with frequent trouble sleeping and concentrating and wandered frequently but not daily. No hallucinations or delusion were present. A care plan, dated 8/2/22 with a last review date of 12/28/23, indicated the resident was at risk for adverse consequences related to receiving antipsychotic medication for psychotic disorder with delusions due 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 · Dcited before2024-02-22 · 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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a staff member with COVID-19 and symptoms was isolated and tested prior to working with the residents for 1 of 5 staff observed for infection control. Findings include: During an observation on 2/22/24 at 8:15 a.m. LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 4 began to prepare medications for Resident 14. During the observation, the LPN had audible congestion, was sniffling, and appeared generally unwell. He began to have perspiration during the medication administration of medications to Resident 14. During an interview on 2/22/24 at 8:38 a.m., after completing the medication administration as he drew up insulin for Resident 14, he indicated he had started with sinus pressure on 2/21/24. On 2/22/24, he was a little warm and had body aches. He probably needed to test himself for COVID-19, but had not done so yet. He had not let anyone know he wasn't feeling well. He had just come in and went straight to work. He then went into Resident 14's room and administered her insulin to her. During an observation on 02/22/24…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to TRILOGY HEALTH SERVICES — 123 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 4.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 122 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 122; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
CMS ownership filings flag an owner of this facility as a real-estate investment trust (REIT). That’s a fact worth knowing: peer-reviewed research links private-equity and REIT ownership to lower staffing and more citations on average — though any individual home can run well or poorly regardless. Read the inspection and staffing record above on its own merits.
- AMERICAN HEALTHCARE REIT INC — REIT · 100.00% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
Source: CMS SNF ownership filings (PECOS). These flags are self-reported and undercount — federal auditors (GAO) and researchers find CMS captures only a fraction of true private-equity and REIT ties, so the absence of a flag on other homes is not proof they lack investor owners. How investor ownership affects care →
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAVIESS COUNTY HOSPITAL | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 12/01/2014 |
| BARNEY, LEIGH | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/22/2026 |
| DAVIS, DAVID | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 12/31/2019 |
| CONTINENTAL MERGER SUB LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 29% | since 10/01/2021 |
| AMERICAN HEALTHCARE REIT INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2018 |
| KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | — | since 09/01/2024 |
| TRILOGY PROPCO FINANCE LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| CORBIN, KATHY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2015 |
| HARRIS, JUSTIN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2025 |
| TRINITY HEALTHCARE OF NEW ALBANY LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2014 |
| CRASE, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| WELLS, ALICIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2026 |
| AMERICAN HEALTHCARE REIT HOLDINGS LP | Organization | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| GAHC4 TRILOGY JV LLC | Organization | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2018 |
| TRILOGY REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST | Organization | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| TRILOGY REIT HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| GAHC3 TRILOGY JV, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| PARAGON OUTPATIENT REHABILITATION SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| TRILOGY HEALTH SERVICES | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/19/2025 |
| TRILOGY HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| TRILOGY HEALTHCARE MASTER TENANT IX LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/20/2025 |
| TRILOGY INVESTORS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| TRILOGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2015 |
| TRILOGY OPCO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/20/2025 |
| TRILOGY PRO SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/19/2025 |
| TRILOGY PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/19/2025 |
| TRILOGY REAL ESTATE NEW ALBANY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2015 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 41 rows in the source record cover these 27 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
21 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in IN
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Indiana Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 155681. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-01, 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.