Lincoln Hills Of New Albany
326 Country Club Drive, New Albany, IN 47150 · Government - County · 156 certified beds · (812) 948-1311 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- 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)
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $12,649 in federal fines (most recent 2024-09-30)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- about 26% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 2 to 3 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 | 6.2% | 11.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.2% | 5.5% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.4% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.2% | 1.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 26.2% | 25.2% | 6.5% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.4% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.5% | 11.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 26.0% | 23.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 99.1% | 95.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.2% | 3.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.9% | 23.3% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.5% | 13.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 82.1% | 79.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.8% | 22.2% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.2% | 10.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.32 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.64 | 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.
45.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 120 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 78.6% 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 42 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 0.34 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 58% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 30% 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 | 45.2%CMS range 36.0–52.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 16.1%CMS range 11.9–20.4 | 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 | 78.6% | 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 | 73.8% | 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 | 61.9% | 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 | 93.7% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 96.3% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 9.3%CMS range 5.5–13.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.36 | 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 156 beds and averages 123.5 residents a day — about 79% occupied, or roughly 32 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 3.62 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.60 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.01 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.09 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.84 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.69 to 0.36 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-09-30 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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 was provided the care and services to prevent the development of skin breakdown for four areas, to ensure the skin assessments identified a pressure ulcer prior to it becoming a Stage 3 wound, and the worsening of the Stage 3 pressure ulcer. This resulted in the wound worsening to a Stage 4 pressure ulcer. (Resident 18) Findings include: The record for Resident 18 was reviewed on 9/26/24 at 10:27 a.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, dementia, skin changes, Stage 4 pressure ulcer (full thickness ulcer with the involvement of the muscle or bone) of the left heel, limitation of activities due to disability, abnormalities of gait and mobilities, lack of coordination, Parkinsonism, hallucinations, left foot drop, neuralgia (nerve pain) and neuritis (inflammation of one or more nerves), and type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic nephropathy (kidney disease). The nurse's note, dated 10/16/23 at 12:15 p.m., indicated the resident arrived at the facility for admission. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2023-08-29 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure interventions were implemented for falls and to ensure safe transfer procedures were implemented for a resident that required maximum assistance which resulted in multifocal acute intracranial hemorrhage, right convexity subdural hematoma, small acute subarachnoid hemorrhage in the right sylvian fissure and interhemispheric fissure and small volume acute intraventricular hemorrhage in the right lateral ventricle for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident 57) Findings include: 1.a The record for Resident 57 was reviewed on 8/24/23 at 9:30 a.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, traumatic subdural hemorrhage without loss of consciousness, the need for assistance with personal care, reduced mobility, unsteadiness on feet, and contracture of the left hand. The Annual MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 5/9/23, indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. She required extensive assistance with 2…
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 · E2025-12-05 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' meal trays were removed in a timely manner for 6 of 7 residents reviewed for dignity. (Residents 38, 43, 104, 122, 109, and 74)Findings include: 1. During an observation and interview, on 12/1/25 at 10:00 a.m., Resident 38 was sitting up in her wheelchair with her breakfast tray sitting in front of her on the bedside table. She had not eaten any of her breakfast. She held a butter knife in her hand and indicated she was trying to get started eating her breakfast. During an interview, on 12/3/25 at 10:05 a.m., Resident 38 indicated the staff normally left the breakfast tray on her bedside table. She was asleep when they brought it. They would let her know it was there. The resident had not yet eaten any of her breakfast. She indicated she was going to eat it soon. During an observation, on 12/03/2025 12:02 p.m., Resident 38 received her lunch. As Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 4 left the resident's room, she indicated the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-12-05 · 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 clean and sanitary condition and the disposal of expired food. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 120 of 120 residents residing in the facility.Findings Include:During an observation of the facility kitchen, on 12/1/25 at 9:30 a.m., the following was observed: - Fifty small condiments containers were observed with ranch dressing in them. The expiration date on the containers was 11/18/25. - The kitchen floor had several black and brown dried substances on the floor tile (the floor appeared greasy) and food debris was scattered on the floor. - The knob to the oven door was missing and the Dietary Manager located it underneath the oven. the Dietary Manager indicated the knob was loose and frequently fell off. - There was a brown greasy streak running down the full length of the oven door and onto the floor. During a second observation of the facility kitchen, on 12/3/25 the following was observed: - The kitchen floor had several black and brown dried…
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 before2025-12-05 · 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 observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's plan of care was revised for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for dementia care. (Resident 121)Findings include:During an observation on 12/5/25 at 11:30 a.m., the resident was seen in the hallway propelling his wheelchair to the activities room from C Hall which was not a locked unit. The resident indicated that he felt good today and was ready to be out of his room.The record for Resident 121 was reviewed on 12/2/25 at 8:30 a.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, personal history of traumatic brain injury, bipolar disorder, memory deficit following other cerebrovascular disease, history of falls, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.A care plan, dated 4/12/24, indicated the resident had a diagnosis of dementia, that negatively impacts the resident's cognition and judgement, causing the resident to require a locked, structured unit. The goal, dated 2/14/26, was for the resident to remain on locked unit until their clinical and psychosocial needs no longer required 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 before2025-02-27 · 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 a plan of care was in place timely, for a resident's non-compliance with a fall intervention related to the use of hipsters for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for care plans. (Resident D) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident D was reviewed on 2/27/25 at 9:28 a.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, vascular dementia and abnormalities of the gait. The care plan, dated 7/22/24, indicated the resident was at risk for falls. The resident was to wear hipsters (help reduce the risk of injuries from a fall, such as hip fractures, through impact-absorbing foam pads) at all times as the resident would allow to decrease risk of injury with falls. The progress note, dated 2/20/25 at 9:24 p.m., indicated the resident was walking in the dining room and fell over onto her left hip. The residents' hipsters were not on. The nurse practitioner was notified and a new order received for an x-ray. The progress note, dated 2/21/25 at 1:26 a.m., indicated the resident was sent to the hospital due to 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 · E2024-09-30 · 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 promptly resolve the grievances made by the Resident Council and discussed the resolutions/responses at the next Resident Council meeting during 3 of 9 Resident Council meetings. (February, April, and August 2024) Findings include: During the Resident Council meeting on 9/24/24 at 9:55 a.m., with 13 residents whom the Activities Director indicated were alert and oriented. The residents voiced that they had the meetings and voiced their concerns, and then that was the last they heard. They never knew what the outcome was to their concerns. They indicated it was not discussed in the next month's meeting. 1. The Resident Council meeting, held on 2/2/24, indicated the following concerns were not addressed by the responsible department or resolved: - Resident 34 was missing clothes. - Residents were tired of the same menu. The kitchen needed to cut back on the salt in the food. No response to these concerns could be located. During the meeting, the residents voiced concerns about not getting their clothes back. The Director 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 · E2024-09-30 · tag F0576 — patternEnsure residents have reasonable access to and privacy in their use of communication methods.
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 residents received their mail on Saturdays when it was delivered to the facility. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 109 residents currently residing in the facility. Findings include: During the Resident Council meeting on 9/24/24 at 9:55 a.m., with 13 residents whom the Activities Director indicated were alert and oriented. The residents voiced that they were not receiving any mail on Saturdays. They indicated they knew it was being delivered to the facility as they had seen the mailman come in. During an interview with the Activities Director on 9/30/24 at 9:15 a.m., he indicated the mail during the week was passed by him. If the Friday mail came in late in the afternoon, he would go ahead and pass it before he left for the day. The mail was being delivered to the facility on Saturdays, but someone had to sort through it and remove the mail the residents were not supposed to receive such as bills. He did not know who did the sorting on Saturday, but any mail that came in on Saturday was not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-09-30 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide 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
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure narcotics were documentated on the Controlled Drug Record of the administered narcotics for 6 of 68 residents observed for medication storage on the C and E Hall medication carts. (Residents 104, 21, 60, 26, 3, and 54) Findings include: 1. During an observation on 9/25/24 at 1:53 p.m., of the C Hall medication cart, the following were identified: a. Resident 104's oxycodone 10 mg (milligrams) Controlled Drug Record had a count of 7 tablets left. The resident's medication card contained 6 tablets of the oxycodone. The last dose signed out on the Controlled Drug Record was on 9/25/24 at 2:44 a.m. The clinical record was reviewed on 9/29/24 at 1:20 p.m., the physician's order, dated 9/20/24, indicated the resident received the oxycodone 10 mg every 4 hours as needed for pain. The resident's September MAR (Medication Administration Record) indicated the resident's last dose of oxycodone 10 mg was administered on 9/25/24 at 12:38 p.m., by LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 3. b. Resident 21's hydrocodone/APAP…
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 before2024-09-30 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a hot liquid assessment was completed for a resident with a decline in function for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident 80) Findings include: During an observation on 9/23/24 at 12:30 p.m., Resident 80's lunch tray was sitting on the table within the resident's reach. No staff were in the resident's room. The resident was able to pull the tray close to him and pick up his spoon. He attempted to pick up his peaches. Due to the resident's bilateral hand contractures, he was unable to pick up the small bowl of peaches. He attempted to pick up a peach with his spoon and was unable to do so. The record for Resident 80 was reviewed on 9/24/24 at 11:00 a.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, moderate intellectual disabilities, limitation of activities due to his disability, contracture of the right hand, contracture of the left hand, contracture of muscle on the right hand, contracture of the muscle on the left hand, and abnormal posture. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-12-18 · 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 appropriate interventions, supervision, and care were provided for a resident with dementia related behaviors for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for Dementia Care. (Resident B) Findings include: The record for Resident B was reviewed on 12/18/23 at 9:15 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Alzheimer's disease, dementia with other behavioral disturbance, severe with anxiety, colostomy status, need for assistance with personal care, attention and concentration deficit, and mild cognitive impairment of uncertain or unknown etiology. The care plan, dated 11/15/22, indicated the resident required care and assistance for his colostomy with a potential for complications. The interventions included, but were not limited to, change the ostomy as ordered, provide care as ordered, report abdominal distention or discomfort, erythema, edema, tenderness, or drainage to stoma. The Social Services note, dated 1/25/23 at 8:50 a.m., indicated the resident had increased confusion. He was stating he was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-29 · 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 when a resident's blood sugar readings fell outside the physician ordered parameters for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for notification of change. (Resident 104) Findings include: The record for Resident 104 was reviewed on 8/25/23 at 11:29 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, type 1 diabetes without complications, nutritional anemia, and dependence on renal dialysis. A care plan, dated 6/4/23, indicated the resident had the potential for hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia and diabetic complications related to diabetes mellitus. The goal was for the resident to be free of unrecognized hypoperglycemia or hyperglycemia. The approaches included, but were not limited to, administer accu checks (blood sugar checks) and any insulin coverage per physician's order; and to report any signs of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/27/23, indicated the resident was cognitively…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-29 · 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 follow appropriate infection control guidelines related to perineal care for 3 of 6 residents with a history of urinary track infections reviewed for bowel and bladder. (Residents 76, 42, and 35) Findings include: 1. During an observation of perineal care for Resident 76 on 8/29/23 at 9:39 a.m., CNA (Certified Nurse Aide) 9 performed hand hygiene and applied gloves from her pocket. A wet soapy washcloth was obtained and with 4 swipes of the same area of the washcloth the labial area was cleaned. She obtained a wet washcloth and with 3 swipes of the same area of the washcloth she rinsed the creases. She obtained a wet washcloth and with 2 swipes of the same area of the washcloth she rinsed the labial area. The resident was rolled onto her left side and a wet soapy washcloth was obtained. With 11 swipes of the same area of the washcloth she cleaned the buttocks and anal area with a back-and-forth motion. Stool was observed on the washcloth. She obtained a wet soapy washcloth with 5 swipes of the same area 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 · D2023-08-29 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate pain management interventions were implemented for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for pain. (Resident 102) Findings include: The record for Resident 102 was reviewed on 8/24/23 at 10:00 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, unspecified pain (present on admission on [DATE]), low back pain (added on 7/14/23), and intercostal pain (added on 7/18/23). The physician's order, dated 5/29/23, indicated staff were to administer the resident's hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5/325 mg (milligram) every 4 hours as needed for pain. The physician's note, dated 5/26/23 at 10:31 p.m., indicated the physician was contacted for a controlled substance refill, a bridge supply was ordered until the primary team evaluated the resident. The physician indicated they discussed non-pharmacological pain management options, however, did not indicate what they were. The admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessment, dated 6/2/23, indicated the resident was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-08-29 · 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 the physician was notified when a dialysis resident's weight was above the physician-ordered set parameters for 1 of 7 dialysis residents currently residing in the facility. (Resident 104) Findings include: The record for Resident 104 was reviewed on 8/25/23 at 11:29 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, metabolic syndrome, diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia without coma, nutritional anemia, and end stage renal disease with dependence on renal dialysis. A care plan, dated 6/4/23 with a last review date of 8/28/23, indicated the resident was at nutritional risk related to the carbohydrate controlled diet, fluid restricted diet and an altered BMI (body mass index).The goal was for the resident to tolerate the carbohydrate controlled/fluid restricted diet. The approaches included, but were not limited to, monitor/record weight routinely and notify the physician and Registered Dietitian of significant weight changes. A care plan, dated 6/4/23 with a last review date of 8/28/23,…
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
$12,649 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $12,649 — penalty dated 2024-09-30
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CARDON & ASSOCIATES — 19 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 | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
The other 18 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.7★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 01/01/2018 |
| GERMAN AMERICAN BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/15/2025 |
| BALLA, MATTHEW | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/23/2022 |
| CATTELL, ZACHARY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/25/2022 |
| EMERSON, MARK | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/20/2020 |
| FAUTH, KENDRA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/26/2021 |
| GORMAL, GREGG | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2016 |
| HAUG, AMY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/04/2022 |
| LOPOSSA, LYNN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/17/2023 |
| MCCLELLAND, THOMAS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/26/2021 |
| SPENCER, LEAANN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/18/2018 |
| FRIEND, JAYNA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2021 |
| CARDON AND ASSOCIATES INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/30/2025 |
| CARDON MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/30/2025 |
| MOORE OPERATING GROUP INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/18/2020 |
| ABRAM, ELIZABETH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/03/2021 |
| HAFIDH, SAAD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/17/2022 |
| HYATT, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/27/2023 |
| MCINTOSH, ERIC | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/31/2021 |
| POVINELLI, KIMBERLY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/14/2020 |
| HEADLEY, KATHY | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/22/2025 |
| MOORE, DANIEL | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/29/2025 |
| MOORE, DAVID | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/29/2025 |
| MOORE, STEPHEN | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/29/2025 |
| ANKURA CONSULTING GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/15/2022 |
| BRADLEY & ASSOCIATES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2023 |
| COLE MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2015 |
| FORVIS MAZARS LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| HEALTHDRIVE PODIATRY GROUP PA | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/07/2019 |
| HEART OF CARDON LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/06/2007 |
| ISD RENAL INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/16/2021 |
| JEFFREY L MORER OD PC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/07/2019 |
| LACY BEYL & COMPANY INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| LIFESPAN THERAPY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/25/2007 |
| LINCOLN HILLS PROPERTY LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/20/2017 |
| MED-PASS INCORPORATED | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2020 |
| MOBILE AUDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES PC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/07/2019 |
| MOSER CONSULTING INCORPORATED | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2020 |
| PROACTIVE CLINICAL PARTNERS | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2020 |
| RESPIRATORY PARTNERS INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2019 |
| THIRD EYE HEALTH INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/04/2022 |
| VOHRA WOUND PHYSICIANS OF THE WEST PC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/28/2020 |
| VOX GLOBAL LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/28/2019 |
| TACKETT, TIFFANY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/24/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 70 rows in the source record cover these 44 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
24 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 $4.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 26% 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 155614. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-05, 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.