Good Samaritan Home & Rehabilitative Center
231 N Jackson St, Oakland City, IN 47660 · Non profit - Corporation · 103 certified beds · (812) 749-4774 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (28% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- about 24% 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 8.7% | 11.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.8% | 5.5% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.3% | 0.4% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.0% | 1.1% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.7% | 25.2% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.5% | 3.9% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.3% | 11.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.2% | 23.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.7% | 3.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.9% | 23.3% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.3% | 13.6% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 83.9% | 79.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.3% | 22.2% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 3.1% | 10.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.20 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.60 | 1.44 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Met the expected recovery: 52.4% 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 21 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.28 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 42% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.5%CMS range 6.7–16.6 | 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 | 52.4% | 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 | 47.6% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 52.4% | 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 | 80.8% | 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 7.7% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.69 | 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 103 beds and averages 69.5 residents a day — about 67% occupied, or roughly 34 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 3.96 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.52 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.84 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.50 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.14 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.63 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 28% 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.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-25 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 the restorative services were provided for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for restorative and rehabilitation services. Restorative services were not initiated for a resident when discharged from rehabilitation services. (Resident 9)Finding includes: During an interview on 3/20/26 at 9:16 A.M., Resident 9 indicated that he had been cleared to walk for a while, but no one had been around to help him get started. On 3/23/26 at 8:46 A.M., Resident 9's clinical record was reviewed. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, chronic obstructive pulmonary, unspecified fracture of left acetabulum, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, and other specified fracture of left pubis.The current Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident 9 was cognitively intact. Resident 9 was independent with eating, needed substantial to maximum assistance for dressing and lying to sitting at the bedside, and needed partial 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 · E2025-01-09 · 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store and prepare food under sanitary conditions during 2 of 2 kitchen observations. Food was not labeled correctly and expired food was not disposed of from the reach in refrigerator. (Kitchen, spice rack, reach-in refrigerator) Findings include: On 1/2/25 at 9:25 A.M., during the initial tour the following were observed in the reach in refrigerator: 1 container of sausage links prepared 12/30/24 with a discard date of 1/1/25 2 containers of cheese with no open date 1 container of chicken soup with no open date 1 jar of grape jelly with no open date 1 container of pasta dated 11/20/24 with expiration date of 11/27/24 1 bag of salad with no open date 1 bag of salad with use by dated of 12/24/24 On 1/2/25 at 9:40 A.M., the following were observed in the dry storage: 2 bags of dry noodles with no open date 1 box of potatoes with no open date 1 empty bread rack on the floor 1 moldy onion in a box with no open date On 1/2/25 at 9:50 A.M., the following was observed on a metal spice rack in the dry storage area: 1…
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 · D2025-01-09 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to accommodate a resident's choice of funeral home for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for death (Resident 218). A resident's body was released to a funeral home that was not designated as the resident's choice. Finding includes: On [DATE] at 10:37 A.M., Resident 218's clinical record was reviewed. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, intellectual disabilities. The Death in Facility Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment indicated Resident 218 died at the facility on [DATE]. Physician orders included, but were not limited to: May release remains to funeral home of choice, dated [DATE]. Resident 218's facesheet listed (name of Crematorium) as the resident's preferred funeral home. A nursing progress note, dated [DATE] at 5:24 P.M., indicated the resident was found without respirations or pulse in her room, and (name of Crematorium) would be called when the family was ready. A nursing progress note, dated [DATE] at 6:56 P.M., indicated (name of Crematorium)…
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 · D2025-01-09 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure notification to family or physician was provided for changes in condition for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for notification of change. (Resident 58 and Resident 218) Findings include: 1. On 1/3/25 at 2:53 P.M., Resident 58's clinical record was reviewed. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Alzheimer's disease. The most recent Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 12/30/24, indicated Resident 58's cognition was too low to assess and was completely dependent on staff (staff do all of the work) for toileting, bathing, and transfers. A nursing progress note, dated 12/31/24 5:50 A.M., indicated staff found a 12 inch piece of cloth in Resident 58's stool while performing incontinence care, that Resident 58 had been eating pieces of his blanket. An Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) Behavior Review Note, dated 12/31/2024 09:22 A.M., indicated the root cause of Resident 58 eating his blanket was possible urinary tract infection (UTI) with increased confusion and labs were to be ordered. The clinical…
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 · D2025-01-09 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow pharmacy recommendations for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for hospice services. (Resident 58) Finding includes: On 1/3/25 at 2:53 P.M., Resident 58's clinical record was reviewed. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Alzheimer's disease. The most recent Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 12/30/24, indicated Resident 58 was completely dependent on staff (staff do all of the work) for toileting, bathing, and transfers. Current physician orders included, but were not limited to: lorazepam (antianxiety medication) tablet; 0.5 mg (milligram) oral every 30 minutes as needed, Start date 11/28/24. hyoscyamine sulfate (muscle relaxant) tablet; 0.125 mg oral every two hours as needed, Start date 9/27/24. morphine concentrate (pain medication) solution 10 mg/0.5 mL (milliliter) every 15 minutes as needed, 9/30/24. A nursing progress note dated 12/19/24 at 2:40 P.M., indicated hospice services would be discontinued on 12/23/24. Resident 58 received the following medications after discharge from…
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 · D2025-01-09 · 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 and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection control procedures were followed for hand washing technique for 1 of 1 observations of wound care. (Resident 13) Finding includes: On 1/3/25 at 2:16 P.M., Resident 13's clinical record was reviewed. The most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 11/22/24, indicated Resident 13 had one stage four pressure ulcer (full-thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon, or muscle). Current physician orders included, but were not limited to: Coccyx Pressure Cleanse with wound cleanser, apply Hydrofera Blue (an antibacterial foam dressing used to pack deep wounds), Leave Hydrofera Blue to wound base for seven days, secure with bordered foam dressing. change foam dressing daily and as needed. Start date 1/3/25 During an observation on 1/8/25 at 9:15 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 12 entered Resident 13's room and put a protective gown on. LPN 12 washed her hands for nine seconds, and put gloves on. Qualified Medication Aide (QMA) 7 was in room with gown on assisting Resident 13 rolled 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 · D2023-11-17 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident dignity was respected during a random dining observation for 1 of 2 dining rooms in use at the time of the survey. Findings include: 1. During a random lunchtime observation beginning at 12:10 P.M. in the Chandelier dining room on 11/13/23, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 6 placed a clothing protector on a resident and referred to it as your bib. 2. During a random lunchtime observation beginning at 12:10 P.M. in the Chandelier dining room on 11/13/23, CNA 6 stood while she assisted a resident sitting in a regular sized wheelchair to eat. 3. During a random lunchtime observation beginning at 12:10 P.M. in the Chandelier dining room on 11/13/23, CNA 6 answered her personal cell phone while assisting a resident to eat. On 11/16/23 at 10:19 A.M., the Administrator indicated staff should not refer to clothing protectors as a bib due to resident dignity. At that time, she indicated that staff should sit while assisting residents to eat, and that staff should not have their phones out or answer them…
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 · D2023-11-17 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure 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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that food was served at palatable temperatures for 1 of 1 trays tested for food temperature. Finding includes: On 11/15/23 at 11:56 A.M., the Regional Registered Dietician (RRD) checked the temperatures of the lunch food items that were on the holding table ready to be served. The following temperatures were recorded: Chicken salad sandwich - 32.4 F (Fahrenheit) Pureed chicken salad - 58 F Mashed potatoes - 143.5 F Burgers - 148.6 F Tomatoes - 42.4 F Lettuce - 51.5 F Tomato juice - 40.3 F Cucumber salad - 59.4 F Pudding - 48.2 F At that time, the pureed chicken salad, tomatoes, lettuce, tomato juice, cucumber salad, and pudding were put back in the refrigerator to chill. At 11/15/23 at 12:15 P.M., the RRD re-tested the following foods for temperature: Pureed chicken salad - 36.5 F Tomatoes - 40.8 F Lettuce - 40.4 F Cucumber salad - 40.2 F At that time, the pudding was not re-tested for temperature. At 11/15/23 at 12:33 P.M., [NAME] 3 started plating food to be served to the residents for lunch. At that…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2023-11-17 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure posted nurse staffing sheets contained the correct information daily for 5 of 5 days reviewed during the survey. (11/13/23, 11/14/23, 11/15/23, 11/16/23, 11/17/23) Findings include: On 11/13/23 at 10:30 A.M., the Posted Nurse Staffing form was observed on Station One's nurse's desk dated 11/13/23. The sheet included, but was not limited to, the following information: Shift hours for RN (Registered Nurse), LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse), and CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant). Total number of RN, LPN, and CNA for each shift. Total hours of RN, LPN, and CNA for each shift The sheet did not specify which actual hours were worked by each discipline during the specified shift when the total hours were not equal to the number of staff or to which station they were assigned. On 11/15/23 at 8:28 A.M., the Administrator provided Daily Staffing Sheets dated 11/13/23, 11/14/23 and 11/15/23. The sheets included, but were not limited to, the following information: Shift hours for RN, LPN, and CNA. Total number 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.
- 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 AMERICAN SENIOR COMMUNITIES — 90 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
The other 89 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 89; 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HENRY COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 04/29/2025 |
| CHIES, STEVEN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 06/01/2023 |
| DYNES, SHELDON | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2013 |
| JACKSON, BLAKE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 06/01/2023 |
| JACKSON, ETHAN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 06/01/2023 |
| JACKSON, MARK | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 06/01/2023 |
| JACKSON, MICHAEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 05/14/2024 |
| JACKSON, WESSLEY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 06/01/2023 |
| JUSTICE, DAVID | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 06/01/2023 |
| KELSEY, DONNA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 07/18/2024 |
| PIDGEON, JOHN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2013 |
| SHORE, MARION | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2013 |
| STITLE, STEPHEN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 06/01/2023 |
| WARE, DEBORAH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 08/27/2021 |
| WRIGHT, THERESSA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 06/01/2023 |
| RING, BRIAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/01/2023 |
| AMERICAN SENIOR COMMUNITIES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/18/2025 |
| BRUBAKER, SHERYL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 06/01/2023 |
| DICE, MARK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2023 |
| GEHLHAUSEN, TERRY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/18/2025 |
| HEMBREE, KAYLA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/24/2025 |
| SHANE, ANDREW | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/01/2023 |
| VAN CAMP, STEVEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 35 rows in the source record cover these 23 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 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 86% 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 $1.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 24% 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 155561. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-25, 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.