Rolling Hills Healthcare Center
3625 St Joseph Rd, New Albany, IN 47150 · Non profit - Corporation · 115 certified beds · (812) 948-0670 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602) — most recent Mar 2023
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- a high number of inspection citations overall (36) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- about 19% 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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 1 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 | 3.0% | 11.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.9% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.4% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.3% | 1.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 37.0% | 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 | 2.7% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.7% | 11.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 21.9% | 23.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.0% | 95.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.0% | 3.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.4% | 23.3% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.7% | 13.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.4% | 1.2% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 36.2% | 79.0% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 30.7% | 22.2% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.4% | 10.8% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.36 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.02 | 1.44 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
40.6% 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 42 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 80.8% 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 26 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 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 33% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 40.6%CMS range 26.4–55.7 | 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 | 9.6%CMS range 6.3–17.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 80.8% | 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 | 42.3% | 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 | 69.2% | 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 | 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 | 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 | 2.3% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.0%CMS range 3.5–15.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.99 | 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 115 beds and averages 105.6 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 9 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 3.09 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.42 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.07 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 2.83 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.20 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.50 to 0.23 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
36 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 26 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-23 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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 blood pressure parameters for a resident (Resident B) were followed, as ordered by the physician, for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for quality of care.Findings Include:The clinical record for Resident B was reviewed on 2/23/26 at 10:45 a.m. The resident's diagnosis included, but was not limited to, hypotension (low blood pressure) The physician's order, dated 2/6/26, indicated the resident was to receive Midodrine HCl (hydrochloride) 2.5 mg (milligrams) three times a day at 8:00 a.m.,12:00 p.m., and 4:00 p.m. for hypotension. The medication was to be held if the resident's systolic blood pressure (top number measuring the pressure in arteries when the heart contracts) was above 130. The February 2026 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated the resident received his Midodrine, when his systolic blood pressure was over 130, out of parameters on the following dates and times:-On 2/07/26 at 4:00 p.m., the resident received the Midodrine when his systolic blood pressure was 132.-On 2/17/26 at 8:00 a.m., the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-23 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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 respiratory assessments and respiratory care equipment were in place for a resident (Resident B) who received breathing treatments for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care. Findings include:The clinical record for Resident B was reviewed on 2/23/26 at 10:45 a.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD-obstructive lung disease) and emphysema (a chronic, progressive lung disease). During an observation, on 2/23/26 at 10:26 a.m., Resident B was observed with a nebulizer machine (a machine that turns liquid medicine into a mist to be inhaled directly into the lungs) at bedside. The physician's order, dated 2/6/26, indicated the resident was to receive Yupelri (used to treat COPD and emphysema), 175 mcg (micrograms), 3 ml (milliliters) once daily, per nebulizer at 9:00 a.m. for 20 days. Review of the February 2026 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated, between 2/6/26 and 2/23/26, the resident received a total of 16 doses 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 · E2025-11-13 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
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 the hot water temperatures were between 100 and 120 degrees. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 82 of 82 residents living in the facility. Findings include: During an observation, on 11/13/25 at 10:00 a.m., the following hot water temperatures were observed:-room [ROOM NUMBER] hot water temperature in the bathroom was 93.6 degrees F.-room [ROOM NUMBER] had no hot water in the bathroom.- room [ROOM NUMBER] hot water temperature in the bathroom was degrees 88.0 FDuring an interview, on 11/13/25 at 10:00 a.m., the Maintenance Director indicated he had not received any complaints from the residents about the lack of hot water. The facility flushed the system every morning.During an interview, on 11/13/25 at 10:30 a.m., Resident B indicated he had not had hot water since September. He informed management that he did not have any hot water in his bathroom. He indicated they recently informed him the sink needed a valve…
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 before2025-09-08 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to document medication administration for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. (Resident B) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident B was reviewed on 09/08/25 at 11:36 AM. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 07/09/25, indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired . The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, diabetes, hypertension, non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety, and depression.A current, open-ended physician's order, with a start date of 03/24/25, indicated the staff were to administer the resident's Lantus (insulin), 30 units, twice a day , in the morning and at bedtime. The August and September 2025, Electronic Medication Administration Record (EMAR) lacked documentation that the resident had received the Lantus medication on the following dates and times: 08/02/25 in the morning; 08/03/25 in the morning; 08/09/25 in the morning; 08/10/25 in the morning, 08/23/25 in the morning; 08/30/25 in the morning; 08/31/25 in the morning; and 09/07/25 in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-02 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an intravenous ( IV) antibiotic was given in a timely manner for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. (Residents 2 and 4) Findings include: 1. The record for Resident 2 was reviewed on 7/2/25 at 11:17 a.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, dehiscence of the surgical wound and infection following a surgical procedure. The physician's order, dated 5/8/25, indicated the resident was to receive Ceftriaxone Sodium 2 gram intravenously two times a day for post-op craniotomy for 10 Days and use 2 gram intravenously at bedtime for post-op craniotomy for 28 days. The care plan, dated 5/8/25, indicated Resident 2 was currently on intravenous antibiotic therapy for a surgical wound infection. The interventions included, but were not limited to, the resident would be free of signs and symptoms of infection at IV insertion site, administer the IV medications and flushes per the medical provider's orders, and enhanced barrier precautions. The review of the residents' Medication Administration…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-05-08 · 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 food was disposed of once expired, the vents were cleaned and repaired, the refrigerator thermostat and drip pan under the stove top were repaired. This had the potential to affect 93 of 95 residents who consume meals from the facility. Findings include: During the initial tour of the kitchen on 5/4/25 at 9:10 a.m., the following concerns were observed: - On a stand-alone refrigerator, the external temperature was at 38 degrees Fahrenheit (F). No internal thermometer was located. A gallon container of whole milk, which was 1/3 full, had an expiration date of 5/2/25. - The second stand-alone refrigerator, had an external temperature of 37 degrees F. No internal thermometer was located. There was a container of leftover fish, with a use by date of 5/2/25. There was another container of tuna, with a use by date of 5/3/25. There was a container of lettuce with brown edges, but no serve date or use by date. - The third stand-alone refrigerator, the external temperature read 50 degrees F. There was no…
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 · D2025-05-08 · 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 long acting insulin was held and when blood pressure, cardiac and blood thinner medications were refused for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for notification. (Resident 49) Findings include: The record for Resident 49 was reviewed on 5/5/25 at 1:12 p.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease, other sequel of nontraumatic untraceable hemorrhage, cerebral edema with right hemicraniectomy, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction, history of venous thrombosis and embolism, and essential hypertension. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/9/25, indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. On 9/29/23, the physician's order indicated for the resident to receive Metoprolol Tartrate tablet 50 MG (milligram). One tablet by mouth every morning and at bedtime for hypertension. On 9/30/24, the physician's order…
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 before2025-05-08 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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 received treatment and care in a timely manner for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for quality of care. (Resident 243) Findings Include: The record for Resident 243 was reviewed on 5/5/25 at 11:17 a.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic peripheral angiopathy without gangrene, and sepsis due to methicillin susceptible staphylococcus aureus, and hyperglycemia. The physician's order, dated 4/9/25, indicated the resident was to receive Lispro 100 units per mg before meals for diabeties. The staff were to administer the rsident's insulin based on a sliding scale. The staff were to notifiy the physician if the resident's blood surgar level was less the 70 or grater than 400. If the resident's blood sugar level was 151 to 200 staff were to administer 2 units; 201 to 250 administer 4 units; 251 to 300 administer 6 units; 301 to 350 administer 8 units; 351 to 400 administer 10 units, and if the resident's blood sugar was greater than 400 administer 10…
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 before2025-05-08 · 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, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure interventions and treatments were completed for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Resident 53). Findings included: The record for Resident 53 was reviewed on 5/7/25 at 12:29 p.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, type 2 diabetes mellitus, morbid obesity, osteomyelitis of vertebra, sacral and sacrococcygeal region, and chronic embolism and thrombosis. A physician's order, dated 1/13/25, indicated staff were to obtain the resident vitals every shift for 72 hours and then daily to establish baselines. The record lacked documentation to indicate the resident's vital signs were being completed. The last recorded blood pressure was on 1/28/25 at 95/66 (mm/hg) millimeters of mercury. Vital sign monitoring was an intervention in the care plans of actual skin impairment and osteomyelitis. The care plan, dated 1/14/25, indicated the resident had actual impaired skin integrity that included, a Stage 4 pressure ulcer to the sacrum and unstageable wound to right hip. On…
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 before2025-05-08 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
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 sufficient information related to a resident's blood sugar was rechecked; and physician notification and verbal orders were documented in the resident's clinical record for 1 of 21 residents reviewed for Documentation. (Resident 243) Findings include: The record for Resident 243 was reviewed on 5/5/25 at 11:17 a.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic peripheral angiopathy without gangrene, and sepsis due to methicillin susceptible staphylococcus aureus, and hyperglycemia. The physician's order, dated 4/9/25, indicated the resident was to receive Lispro 100 units per mg before meals for diabeties. The staff were to administer the rsident's insulin based on a sliding scale. The staff were to notifiy the physician if the resident's blood surgar level was less the 70 or grater than 400. If the resident's blood sugar level was 151 to 200 staff were to administer 2 units; 201 to 250 administer 4 units; 251 to 300 administer 6 units; 301 to 350 administer 8…
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.
Show the remaining 26 citations
- Potential for harm · E2025-01-28 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure narcotic medications were not signed out prior to administration times for 7 of 11 residents reviewed for medication storage. (Resident E, Resident M, Resident N, Resident R, Resident S, Resident T and Resident U) Findings include: On 1/27/25 at 11:24 a.m., during an observation of the 400 hall controlled drug administration records with LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 6, the following narcotic medications had been signed out but not administered: -Resident E - Hydrocodone-APAP 5-325 mg (milligrams) signed out on 1/27/25 at 1:00 p.m. -Resident M - Oxycodone IR 5 mg (2 tabs to equal 10 mg) signed out on 1/27/25 at 2:00 p.m. -Resident N - Oxycodone IR 10 mg signed out on 1/27/25 at 2:00 p.m. -Resident R - Oxycodone IR 10 mg signed out on 1/27/25 at 1:00 p.m. -Resident S - Hydrocodone-APAP 5-325 mg signed out on 1/27/25 at 1:00 p.m. -Resident T - Oxycodone-APAP 5-325 mg signed out on 1/27/25 at 1:00 p.m. -Resident U - Hydrocodone-APAP 10-325 mg signed out on 1/27/25 at 1:00 p.m. During an interview on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-01-28 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
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 medication administration records reflected the administration of narcotic medications for 4 of 11 residents reviewed for medical records. (Resident M, Resident N, Resident O and Resident V) Findings include: 1. The clinical record for Resident M was reviewed on 1/28/25 at 11:04 a.m. The diagnosis included, but was not limited to, stage 4 sacral pressure ulcer (wound that extends through all layers of the skin, reaching the underlying muscle, tendon or bone). The physician's order, dated 1/14/25, indicated the resident was to receive Oxycodone (narcotic pain medication) HCl (hydrochloride) 10 mg (milligrams) every 4 hours as needed for pain. The January 2025 controlled drug administration record indicated the resident received the medication on the following dates and times: - 1/20/25 at 6:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. - 1/21/25 at 6:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. - 1/22/25 at 6:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m., 3:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. - 1/23/25 at 1:00 a.m., 6:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. - 1/24/25 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-28 · 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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Indwelling catheter care orders were implemented for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for Indwelling catheters. (Resident M) Findings include: On 1/28/25 at 11:29 a.m., the resident was observed sitting in a chair in her room with an Indwelling catheter in place. The clinical record for Resident M was reviewed on 1/28/25 at 11:04 a.m. The resident's diagnosis included, but was not limited to, stage 4 sacral pressure ulcer (wound that extends through all layers of the skin, reaching the underlying muscle, tendon or bone). The care plan, dated 1/13/25, indicated the resident had an Indwelling catheter and to provide catheter care every shift. The clinical record lacked documentation of any Indwelling catheter care for Resident M. During an interview on 1/28/25 at 9:55 a.m., Staff Member 11 indicated Indwelling catheter care orders should be implemented upon admission. On 1/28/25 at 2:44 p.m., the Regional Director of Clinical Operations provided a current, undated copy of the document titled Catheter Care. It…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-12-20 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the anti-psychotic medication was documented as administered (Resident G) and failed to ensure resident's (Resident C and Resident E) medication administration records reflected the administration of narcotic medication for 3 of 5 residents reviewed for medical records. Findings include: 1. The clinical record for Resident G was reviewed on 12/18/24 at 3:00 p.m. The resident's diagnosis included, but was not limited to, dementia with behavioral disturbance. The physician's order, dated 10/28/24, indicated the resident was to receive Divalproex Sodium (mood stabilizer) delayed release, 125 mg (milligrams) three times a day in the morning, afternoon and at bedtime. The November 2024 medication administration record (MAR) indicated the medication was not signed out as given on the following scheduled administration times: - On 11/12/24 in the morning - On 11/18/24 in the morning On 11/25/24, the Divalproex Sodium was discontinued and a new order was implemented for Divalproex Sodium 500 mg three times a day in 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 · D2024-12-20 · tag F0742 — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty, or who has a history of trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder.
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 behaviors were care planned and monitored for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for behavior management. (Residents B, D, and G) Findings include: 1. The clinical record for Resident B was reviewed on 12/19/24 at 1:24 p.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, dementia with agitation and schizoaffective disorder. During an interview on 12/19/24 at 10:15 a.m., the Memory Care unit manager indicated Resident B would actively seek out Resident C and had done so for a couple of months. She did not know if the resident had been care planned for the behavior. During an interview on 12/19/24 at 10:24 a.m., the Director of Nursing indicated she and the Executive Director had went back to the unit. As they were going down the hallway, there were two females (Residents B and D) in Resident C's room. One was standing up and the other was sitting on the bed. She inquired about the two females in the male resident's room and the staff reported that there was nothing going on. It was not appropriate for females 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 · D2024-12-20 · tag F0744 — failed to care for residents with dementia — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with dementia.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure affective interventions were in place for a resident with increased sexually inappropriate behaviors for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for dementia care. (Resident C) Findings include: 1. The clinical record for Resident C was reviewed on 12/18/24 at 2:15 p.m. The resident's diagnosis included, but was not limited to, dementia with agitation. The care plan, dated 10/6/24, indicated the potential for behavior problem related to a history of sexually acting out. The interventions included, but were not limited to, assist in developing more appropriate methods of coping and interacting and to encourage more male friends and group/public areas with male and female setting; discourage resident wanting to focus continually on one female per family recommendation; encourage the resident be in in eye sight of staff when out of room and if reasonable, discuss behaviors; intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others. The progress note, dated 10/27/24 at 8:42 p.m., indicated the resident continued…
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 before2024-08-29 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accident hazards. (Resident C) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident C was reviewed on 8/28/24 at 12:50 p.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Parkinson's disease and epilepsy. The care plan, dated 3/4/22, indicated the resident was at risk for falls and to apply non-skid strips to the left side of the bed. During an observation with the DON (Director of Nursing) on 8/28/24 at 2:53 p.m., the care planned intervention of non-skid strips to the left side of Resident C's bed were not in place. During an interview on 8/28/24 at 2:43 p.m., the DON indicated if the intervention was on the resident's plan of care, they should be in place. On 8/29/24 at 10:10 a.m., the Executive Director provided a current, undated copy of the document titled Fall Prevention and Management. It included, but was not limited to, It is the policy of this facility to provide resident centered care that meets the .needs .of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-05-16 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — patternReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
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 the resident's call lights were within reach for 10 of 108 residents observed for call light placement. (Residents 20, 77, 256, 60, 47, 91, 11, 38, 46 and 94) Findings include: 1. During an observation on 5/10/24 at 8:15 a.m., Resident 20's call light was laying on the floor underneath the resident's bed. No staff were present in the resident's room. The record for Resident 20 was reviewed on 5/16/24 at 9:18 a.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), major depressive disorder, difficulty walking, muscle wasting and atrophy, the need for assistance with personal care, cognitive communication deficit, dysphagia and dementia. The Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 3/18/24, indicated the resident was rarely or never understood. The resident required the use of a wheelchair for mobility. 2. During an observation on 5/9/24 at 8:30 a.m., Resident 77's call…
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 · E2024-05-16 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed ensure Administration was taking resident concerns seriously or being visible to the residents for 11 of 13 Resident Council meetings (3/23, 4/23, 5/23, 6/23, 7/23, 9/23, 10/23, 1/24, 3/24. 4/24, and 5/24). This deficient practice had the potential to affect 108 of 108 residents currently residing in the facility. Findings include: 1. The Resident Council meeting held on 3/21/23, the residents indicated their concerns were not resolved or acted upon for the following: - There was no improvement in Administration taking the resident's concerns seriously. The residents heard the same excuse over and over. - Nothing was being done about the lack of staff. - The resident's indicated they saw nursing staff walking past the resident's rooms who needed assistance. It was hard to get a nurse to come and see what residents needed at night. - The meals were not being balanced out with the residents' diet. When the ticket said double portions, they were not getting it every meal. The residents were still hungry. The residents were…
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 · E2024-05-16 · tag F0728 — failed to protect against nurse-aide misconduct — patternEnsure that nurse aides who have worked more than 4 months, are trained and competent; and nurse aides who have worked less than 4 months are enrolled in appropriate training.
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 CNAs (Certified Nurse Aides) tested for their licensure, prior to 120 days after of employment and worked past the 120 days for 6 of 33 CNAs reviewed. (CNAs 13, 14, 16, 15, 19, and 17) Findings include: During the review of the employee records on 5/15/24 at 11:10 a.m., the following was identified: -CNA 14 was hired on 9/6/23. -CNA 13 was hired on 8/2/23. Date of hire on the employee records indicate 5/3/23. -CNA 16 was hired on 2/10/20. -CNA 15 was hired on 8/2/23. -CNA 19 was hired on 3/29/23. -CNA 17 was hired on 6/29/23. -CNA 20 was hired on 6/21/23. During an interview on 5/15/24 at 1:25 p.m., the ED (Executive Director) indicated there wasn't a HR (Human Resources) person up to 4/5/24 and the ED looked at all staff for licenses. She found that 8 facility staff who were licensed in Kentucky had not taken their CNA licensure test in the 120 days required in Indiana. All 8 staff were taken off of the work schedule until they passed their CNA licensure test. -CNA 13's 120th day was 11/29/23. She worked 70…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-05-16 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure meals were at appropriate temperatures and palatable for residents, during 3 of 3 meal test trays. This had the potential to affect 106 of 108 residents who ate meals at the facility. (100, 400, and 200 Hall Test Trays) Findings include: 1. During an observation of the 100 Hall lunch test tray on 5/14/24 at 12:00 p.m., the following temperatures were obtained: -The baked ziti had a temperature of 145 degrees F (Fahrenheit). The appearance was palatable. The flavor was bland and salt was applied for more flavor. -The Caesar salad had a temperature of 65.6 degrees F. The appearance and flavor were appetizing. 2. During an observation of the 400 Hall lunch test tray on 5/14/24 at 12:25 p.m., the following temperatures were obtained: -The baked ziti had a temperature of 135 degrees F. -The Caesar salad had a temperature of 63.5 degrees F. 3. During an observation of the 200 Hall lunch test tray on 5/16/24 at 11:52 a.m., the following temperatures were obtained: The pepperoni pizza had a temperature of 168.8 degrees F. 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 · Ecited before2024-05-16 · 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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was cleaned and in good repair 2 of 2 observations. This had the potential to affect 106 of 108 residents who consumed meals at the facility. Findings include: 1. During an interview and observation of the kitchen on 5/9/24 at 9:25 a.m., Server/Dishwasher 10 indicated the dishwasher was currently working, but it had not been previously. When it was checked, she indicated, oh good it is working. The dishwasher was observed running. The wash cycle temperature was 145 degrees F (Fahrenheit) and the rinse cycle had a temperature of 170 degrees F. At 11:15 a.m., during observation of the kitchen ceiling the ceiling plaster around the vent had flaked off. The vent was over the preparation table and the flaked off areas were at each corner of the vent. The ceiling was brown stained along the left side of the vent. The two vents over the serving table at the end of the steamer were brown and grease covered. The back metal panel of the burners on the stove had brown streaks of grease. The ceiling around the vent 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 · Dcited before2024-05-16 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to identify a resident's right heel pressure ulcer prior to the wound being first identified as an open blister, no longer holding fluid for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Resident 8) Findings include: The record for Resident 8 was reviewed on 5/14/24 at 2:10 p.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, non-traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, hemiplegia (partial paralysis on one side of the body) and hemiparesis, dementia, anxiety disorder, unsteadiness on feet, assistance with personal care, difficulty walking, and cognitive communication disorder. The Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 2/29/24, indicated the resident's cognition was moderately impaired. The resident required substantial or maximal staff assistance with his ADL's (Activities of Daily Living). The care plan, dated 3/23/23, indicated Resident 8 had impaired skin integrity or altered skin integrity related to immobility. The interventions included, but were not limited to, apply barrier creams post…
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 · F2023-03-03 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — widespreadProvide 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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure adequate staffing which contributed to the lack of resident care, the distribution of fluids, and supervision. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 104 of 104 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: During an interview on 2/27/23 at 11:45 a.m., Resident N's family member indicated the resident did not get the help and care needed without having to wait a long time. The family member indicated in the morning, the resident would have brown rings from urine on the sheets. It took bleach to launder them. The night shift would just let the residents lay in bed unchanged. Family felt the need to stay with the resident from 10:30 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., to provide care for the resident. The family had to start feeding the resident at every meal, because of the resident's weight loss. During an interview on 2/27/23 at 11:45 a.m., Resident M's family member indicated she felt the staff wouldn't pay attention to call lights at times. The facility recommended hospice care for the resident…
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 · Fcited before2023-03-03 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespreadEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure meals were healthy and appetizing for residents, during 1 of 2 meal test trays. This had the potential to affect all 104 residents who ate meals at the facility. Findings include: During an interview on 2/27/23 at 9:38 a.m., Resident 63 indicated the food was bad and it was cold sometimes. During an interview on 2/27/23 at 9:40 a.m., Resident 211 indicated the food was not good. During a lunch meal test tray observation and tasting on 3/2/23 at 11:26 a.m., the residents were served chicken salad sandwiches, broccoli salad, and potato salad. All 3 of the salads had mayonnaise in the recipe. The potatoes and the broccoli were undercooked. During an interview on 3/2/23 at 12:45 p.m., Resident 15 indicated the food was terrible today. The potatoes and broccoli were hard. If there was only one salad dish, it wouldn't have been so bad, but it was too many salads. The menu repeated all of the time. During an interview on 3/2/23 at 12:46 p.m., Resident 96 indicated she didn't like the potato salad. There was too many salad…
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 · E2023-03-03 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' rooms were clean and free of debris for 4 of 5 random observations of the facility environment and for 5 of 104 residents that reside in the facility. (Residents 81, 105, 67, 20, and 33) Findings include: During an observation of Residents 81's and 105's room on 2/28/23 at 2:25 p.m., there was a heavy soiled area of food particles under and around both beds. During an observation of the 200 Hall on 3/1/22 between 2:30 p.m. and 2:45 p.m., in Resident 67's room there were three strips of bacon, a sausage patty, and a heavy accumulation of other unidentifiable food debris on the floor under the resident's night stand. In Resident 20 and 33's room there was a heavy buildup of food debris under the bed and a heavy buildup of brown debris built up on the floor near the walls throughout the room. During an observation of the 200 Hall on 3/2/22 at 2:50 p.m., in Resident 67's room there were three strips of bacon, a sausage patty, and a heavy accumulation of other unidentifiable food debris on the floor under 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 · Ecited before2023-03-03 · 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
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the residents' rooms were free of hazards related to multiple medications, including controlled substances, were found on the bedroom floors in 5 of 61 resident rooms. (Residents 15, 32, 86, 20, and 97) Findings include: 1. The clinical record for Resident 15 was reviewed on 3/2/23 at 8:19 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, dementia with agitation and cognitive communication deficit, generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/7/22, indicated the resident was cognitively intact, had no mood or behavior issues, no hallucinations or delusions, had no swallowing issues, and was mobile in a wheelchair with no impairments in functional range of motion. During a random environmental observation of Resident 15's room on 3/1/23 at 2:40 p.m., on the floor in front of her nightstand there were 2 small white pills observed. During an interview on 3/1/23 at 2:45 p.m., LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 4 was shown both white…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-03-03 · 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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen equipment was cleaned and in good repair, and food was stored properly in the dry goods room and refrigerator. This had the potential to affect all 104 residents who consumed meals at the facility. Findings include: During a tour of the kitchen on 2/27/23 at 9:12 a.m., the following concerns were observed: -There was a black loose charcoal substance on the bottom of the oven. -There was a black burned greasy area on the metal panel and plaster wall above the metal panel, to the left of the stove top burners. -There was a black greasy area to the right of the burners on the metal panel. -There was food debris and a build-up of a black charcoal substance on three of the aluminum lined drip pans under the burners. The drip pan on the left had grease under the aluminum. The fourth drip pan would not open. -In the dry goods storage room, the lid on the storage container, which had an open bag of dry milk, was ajar over half of the top. -the stand alone refrigerator had an internal temperature of 54 degrees…
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 · E2023-03-03 · tag F0886 — failed to test for COVID-19 as required — patternPerform COVID19 testing on residents and staff.
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 were COVID-19 tested in accordance with their policy for 6 of 12 residents reviewed for COVID testing. (Residents 80, 76, 89, 70, 87 and 92). Findings included: 1. The clinical record for Resident 76 was reviewed on 3/1/23 at 11:01 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) and large-B-cell lymphoma. The Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 12/15/22, indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. On 6/9/22, the resident received new physician orders for Respiratory/COVID Screener: Any of the following S/Sx (signs/symptoms) of COVID-19 observed: If any S/Sx noted; complete the Respiratory/COVID Symptoms Evaluation, every shift, and for COVID-19 testing as needed; may use PCR (polymerase chain reaction) or POC (rapid viral test) testing as needed. A care plan, dated 6/13/22, indicated the resident had COPD with shortness of breath. The interventions included, but were not limited to, administer medications per medical…
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 · D2023-03-03 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical abuse by another resident for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for abuse. (Residents B, H, and J) Findings include: 1. The clinical record for Resident B was reviewed on 2/28/23 at 1:42 p.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, schizoaffective disorder, dementia with agitation, paranoid personality disorder, anxiety disorder, depression, and cognitive communication deficit. The social services note, dated 8/10/22 at 2:40 p.m., indicated the resident's cognition assessment indicated her cognition was severely impaired. There were no behaviors at that time. The incident note, dated 10/21/22 at 9:12 a.m., indicated Resident B was observed with abrasions or scratches on her chest and below her right eye area. Upon investigation, the resident indicated another resident allegedly made contact with her, causing the areas. This was not witnessed by any staff members. The resident was assessed by a licensed nurse with no other areas identified. The family and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-03-03 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and observation, the facility failed to ensure misappropriation of a resident's property had not occurred, related to a missing narcotic card for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for misappropriation. (Resident 71) Findings include: The review of the Incident Report, dated 1/29/23, indicated the facility discovered Resident 71's card of Hydrocodone-APAP, 10-325 mg, was missing. A pain assessment was completed, and the resident denied pain. RN 8 indicated he worked Friday, 1/27/23, on the 200-Hall from 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. The RN received a card of Hydrocodone 10-325 mg, containing 30 tablets, from the pharmacy delivery at approximately 8:00 p.m. It was the only narcotic card he had received. The card was for Resident 71. He locked the card in the narcotic cart. Then he put the sheet in the narcotic book and added the narcotic to the Control/Shift change count book. LPN 9 (Licensed Practical Nurse) was scheduled to work the 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on the 400- Hall. The LPN arrived at the facility at 6:07 a.m. Another nurse came to LPN 9 and handed her the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-03-03 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure preventative interventions were implemented for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Residents E, O, and F) Findings include: 1. The clinical record for Resident E was reviewed on 2/28/23 at 12:00 p.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side and homonymous bilateral field defects of left side. The admission assessment, dated 2/2/22, indicated the resident had no skin areas observed. The Braden scale indicated the resident was chairfast, had slightly limited mobility, adequate nutrition, had a potential problem with friction and shearing, and was identified as a potential risk for skin breakdown. Suggested interventions included explain risk versus benefits to resident/family and the importance of changing positions for prevention of pressure ulcers, encourage small frequent position changes, turning and repositioning at least every 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 · Dcited before2023-03-03 · 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 provide proper perineal and catheter care for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for bowel and bladder. (Residents M and D) Findings include: 1. The clinical record for Resident M was reviewed on 3/1/23 at 11:31 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Alzheimer's disease, hyperosmolality and hypernatremia. The Annual MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 2/2/23, indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The infection note, dated 12/5/22 at 2:09 p.m., indicated the hospice company called and a new order was received to start Ciprofloxacin 500 mg (milligrams) twice daily for 7 days related to a UTI (urinary tract infection). The nurse's note, dated 12/9/22 at 1:27 p.m., indicated the resident continued to receive Ciprofloxacin for a UTI. No signs or symptoms of urinary issues were observed. His temperature was 98.3 degrees. During a confidential interview between 2/7/23 and 3/3/23, Staff B indicated it had been a while since the resident has had a UTI. He was not cooperative with…
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 · D2023-03-03 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were monitored for weight loss and provided with assistance for eating for 3 of 6 residents reviewed for nutrition (Residents 89, 59, and 70) Findings include: 1. The clinical record for Resident 89 was reviewed on 3/1/23 at 11:31 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Alzheimer's disease, celiac disease, depression, anxiety disorder, hyperlipidemia, hyperosmolality, and hypernatremia. The resident was admitted on [DATE] with a weight of 182.4 pounds. The care plan, dated 11/29/21 and last revised on 1/26/23, indicated the resident was at risk for nutritional decline related to dementia, hyperlipidemia, weight loss, and gluten allergy. The interventions, dated 11/29/21, included but were not limited to, staff were to ensure dentures were utilized for meals; establish a baseline weight; identify the resident's food and beverage preferences; monitor his meal intake; notify the medical provider and resident…
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 · D2023-03-03 · tag F0740 — failed to provide behavioral / mental-health care — isolatedEnsure each resident must receive and the facility must provide necessary behavioral health care and 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 appropriate interventions were implemented to prevent recurrent resident to resident aggressive behaviors for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for behaviors. (Resident 45) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 45 was reviewed on 2/28/23 at 1:00 p.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, dementia with agitation, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder. The care plan, dated 8/11/21, indicated the resident had a potential for alteration in mood and behavior related to dementia, depression, previous homelessness causing fight or flight behaviors, and previous inpatient stays. His behaviors included being verbally aggressive with staff. He had altercations with other residents on 12/7/18, 8/4/21,12/8/21, 9/15/22, and 12/22/22. The interventions included, but were not limited to, allow personal space and quiet time, anticipate and meet the resident's needs, assist the resident to his room as preferred, assist the resident to develop more appropriate methods of coping and interacting with others,…
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 · D2023-03-03 · 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 appropriate Infection Control practices related to transmission-based precautions (TBP) were implemented related to Aerosol-Generating Procedures (AGP's) for 2 of 2 random observations of care. (Resident 87) Findings include: 1. During an observation on 3/3/23 at 8:31 a.m., Resident 87 was observed in her bed in her room utilizing a nebulizer treatment. There was fine aerosol mist observed exiting the end of the nebulizer mouthpiece which she was utilizing. The resident's room door was open. The sign on the resident's door indicated she was in aerosol contact precautions. The sign indicated every one must wear a N95 or higher respirator, eye protection, gown, and gloves when entering and keep the door closed. During an interview and observation on 3/3/23 at 8:33 a.m., LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 20 indicated Resident 87 was receiving a breathing treatment which she had set up for her. She was not aware of the sign to keep the door closed. She thought since the resident was in the second bed it 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.
“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 COMMUNICARE HEALTH — 110 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 | 2 of 5 | 3.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
The other 109 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 109; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BORNE-BAUMAN, CANDICE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/01/2023 |
| FLUECKIGER, RUSSELL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/01/2023 |
| LEHMAN, SCOTT | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/01/2023 |
| MACKLIN, LARRY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/01/2023 |
| MCINTIRE, DAVID | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/01/2023 |
| SMITH, SCOTT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/01/2023 |
| SPRUNGER, KYLE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/01/2023 |
| WHEELER, DANE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/01/2023 |
| ADAMS COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/01/2023 |
| ST JOSEPH MGT CO LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2017 |
| JENKINS, STEFANIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/13/2025 |
| MASROOR, MUHAMMAD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/18/2025 |
| ODENTHAL, RICHARD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/01/2017 |
| BLUE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2023 |
| FIRST BANK OF BERNE | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2023 |
| OMEGA HEALTHCARE INVESTORS INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2017 |
| OMG IN MSTR LSCO LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/18/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 28 rows in the source record cover these 17 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
6 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.
About 75% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 19% 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 155488. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-08, 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.