Milner Community Health Care
370 E Main St, Rossville, IN 46065 · Non profit - Corporation · 80 certified beds · (765) 379-2112 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- nursing-staff turnover (60%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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 held steady at 4 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 | 20.6% | 11.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.4% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 5.6% | 0.4% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.3% | 1.1% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.8% | 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 | 2.2% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 20.9% | 11.9% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 26.8% | 23.5% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.5% | 3.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.6% | 23.3% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.1% | 13.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 82.6% | 79.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.48 | 1.61 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.10 | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.13 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 9% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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 | 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 | 11.5%CMS range 7.6–16.3 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.3%CMS range 3.9–15.1 | 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 80 beds and averages 46.3 residents a day — about 58% 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 3.99 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.88 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.68 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 3.82 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.05 on weekdays — 6% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.95 to 0.69 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 60% is well above 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2023-06-05 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from injury while using a stand-up lift during a transfer for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for accident hazards. (Resident 54). Resident 54 received an acute left mid clavicle fracture during a stand-up lift transfer. Finding includes: A FRI (facility reported incident), dated 1/14/23 at 8:30 p.m., indicated Resident 54 was transferred with a stand up lift and let go of the lift which caused her arms to go over her head. The resident felt something pop at the time although it did not hurt. The resident later complained of pain and was evaluated at the emergency room. She was diagnosed with a fracture of the left clavicle. The record for Resident 54 was reviewed on 6/1/23 at 1:34 p.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, chronic kidney disease stage 3, type 2 diabetes mellitus, right heart failure, macular degeneration, edema, osteoarthritis, and pain in the right knee. A care plan, dated 5/16/22, indicated the resident was at a risk for falls due to an unsteady gait. The interventions did…
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 · E2025-07-28 · tag F0638 — patternAssure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
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 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed timely for 6 of 6 residents reviewed for MDS assessments. (Residents 15, 23, 32, 36, 39 and 43)Findings include: 1. The clinical record for Resident 15 was reviewed on 7/24/25 at 11:00 a.m.The last completed MDS assessment was dated 3/17/25.The MDS assessment, dated 6/20/25, indicated it was incomplete and still in progress.2. The clinical record for Resident 23 was reviewed on 7/24/25 at 11:00 a.m.The last completed MDS assessment was dated 3/19/25.The MDS assessment, dated 6/18/25, indicated it was incomplete and still in progress.3. The clinical record for Resident 32 was reviewed on 7/24/25 at 11:00 a.m.The last completed MDS assessment was dated 3/21/25.The MDS assessment, dated 6/20/25, indicated it was incomplete and still in progress.4. The clinical record for Resident 36 was reviewed on 7/24/25 at 11:00 a.m.The last completed MDS assessment was dated 3/12/25.The MDS assessment, dated 6/12/25, indicated it was incomplete and still in progress.5. 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 · E2024-08-16 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow the physician ordered hold parameters for medications, to notify the physician of a high blood sugar reading as ordered, and to monitor and document bowel movements for 4 of 4 residents reviewed for quality of care. (Resident 34, 44, 25 and 40) Findings include: 1. The clinical record for Resident 34 was reviewed on 8/13/24 at 10:33 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, chronic diastolic heart failure, major depressive disorder, essential hypertension, and stage 3 chronic kidney disease. A physician's order, dated 4/3/24, indicated to give metoprolol (a medication used to treat high blood pressure) 50 mg (milligram) twice daily. Hold if the resident's pulse was below 60 and/or the systolic blood pressure (top number on a blood pressure reading) was below 115. A physician's order, dated 5/9/24, indicated to give midodrine HCL (a medication used to treat orthostatic blood pressure) 5 mg three (3) times a day. Hold for a systolic blood pressure greater than 140. A physician's order, dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-16 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a new Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) was completed when a new mental health diagnosis or a new psychiatric medication was added for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for PASARR. (Resident 31 and 34) Findings include: 1. The clinical record for Resident 31 was reviewed on 8/14/24 at 10:42 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, pain, major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. A PASARR level I screen, dated 9/17/20, did not include a diagnosis of depression or anxiety. There were no medications listed on the PASARR. A social services progress note, dated 10/10/22, indicated the resident was taking Cymbalta (an anti-depressant medication) 60 milligram (mg) daily and had depression and anxiety. The diagnosis of major depressive disorder was added to the resident's list of diagnoses on 11/14/22 and again on 1/17/23. The diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder was added to the resident's diagnosis list on 12/8/22. A physician's order, dated 4/20/21, indicated to give Cymbalta…
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 · D2024-08-16 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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 an accurate bed rail assessment was completed for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for bed rails. (Resident 102) Finding includes: During an observation, on 8/12/24 at 7:49 a.m., Resident 102 was observed to have bilateral (both sides) bed rails at the head of the bed. The clinical record for Resident 102 was reviewed on 8/14/24 at 11:09 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, aphasia following a cerebral infraction (stroke), hemiparesis and hemiplegia (weakness and paralysis to one side of the body), and hypertension. A facility document, titled Bed Rail Appropriateness assessment, dated 8/6/24, indicated the resident did not use bed rails to promote independent mobility, he was not able to push himself away from the rail if he rolled against it and he did not have a medical reason which required bed rails. During an interview, on 8/15/24 at 12:07 p.m., the Director of Nursing indicated the resident should have had a new assessment completed. A facility policy, titled Bed Rail Policy, updated…
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 · D2024-08-16 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure refrigerated medications in a multidose bottle had an open date, failed to ensure a multidose supplement had a resident name/label and failed to ensure a controlled substance had an open date in 2 of 2 medication carts and 1 of 1 medication refrigerators. Findings include: 1. During an observation of the Talyst (automated medication machine) room, on 8/13/24 at 12:31 p.m., a 100-milliliter bottle of gabapentin 250 mg/5 ml (milligram to milliliter) was found, in the refrigerator, with approximately 10 ml remaining. The bottle did not have a date to indicated when it had been opened. During an interview, on 8/13/24 at 12:33 p.m., the Director of Nursing indicated the medication should have had an open date. The record for Resident 102 was reviewed on 8/14/24 at 11:09 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, aphasia following a cerebral infraction (stroke), hemiparesis and hemiplegia (weakness and paralysis to one side 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 · F2023-06-05 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the dishwasher had reached and maintained the appropriate temperature during the wash and final rinse cycle and the ice machine was clean from a black substance inside the machine. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 54 of 54 residents who received food from the kitchen. Findings include: 1. During an observation, on 5/30/23 at 11:27 a.m., the Dietary Manager (DM) ran the facility dishwasher through a cycle. The wash temperature was 120 degrees, and the final rinse was 152. The DM completed a second cycle, and the temperature was 124 degrees for the wash cycle and 152 degrees for the final rinse cycle. 2. During an observation, on 5/30/23 at 11:30 a.m., inside the ice machine was approximately a 6-inch black line across the top of the white plastic strip with water spots around the black line. The black line was wiped with a napkin and a dark black area appeared on the napkin. The DM did not know when the ice machine was last cleaned or what the black substance was. 3. During an…
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 · E2023-06-05 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — patternProvide 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 3. During an interview and observation, on 5/21/23 at 1:45 p.m., Resident 5 was observed to have boots on her lower feet, and she indicated it was for foot drop (difficulty lifting the front part of the foot). The record for Resident 5 was reviewed on 6/1/23 at 9:17 a.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, MS (multiple sclerosis), paraplegia, rheumatoid arthritis, age related osteoporosis, and general muscle weakness. A physician's order, dated 3/24/17, indicated to assist the resident to complete active and passive range of motion to upper and lower extremities twice per day. A physical therapy Discharge summary, dated [DATE] through 1/17/23, indicated the resident should wear podus boots as needed when up out of bed. The physician orders did not include a splint or boot device to go on her feet. During an interview, on 6/1/23 at 10:23 a.m., LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 3 indicated the resident wore boots for pressure relief and the LPN could not find a physician's order for the boots. During an…
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 before2023-06-05 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a PASARR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) was completed when a resident was prescribed an antipsychotic medication for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for PASARR. (Resident 35) Finding includes: The record for Resident 35 was reviewed on 6/2/23 at 9:20 a.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, depressive disorder, delusional disorders, Alzheimer's disease with late onset, dementia in other diseases, and anxiety disorder. A diagnosis of delusional disorder was added on 7/29/19. A PASARR level I, dated 4/30/21, indicated the resident had diagnoses of major depressive disorder, psychotic delusional disorder, and dementia. A physician's order, dated 10/13/22, indicated risperidone (an antipsychotic medication) 0.25 mg (milligram) at bedtime and hold on Mondays and Thursdays related to delusional disorder. During an interview, on 6/02/23 at 11:10 a.m., the Social Service Director indicated a Level II was not completed when the resident started on an antipsychotic medication. The Level II should have been…
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 · D2023-06-05 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 update care plans for long-term antibiotic therapy for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for care plans. (Resident 7) Finding includes: The record for Resident 7 was reviewed on 6/1/23 at 10:46 a.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, cellulitis, depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, lymphedema, and peripheral vascular disease. A physician's order, dated 11/28/21, indicated Cephalexin (an antibiotic) 500 mg (milligram) capsule, give 2 capsules twice a day. A care plan, dated as revised 2/2/23, indicated the resident suffered from lymphedema and had chronic cellulitis. Interventions included, but were not limited to, labs as ordered, encourage to elevate legs, skin assessment weekly, and medications as ordered. A care plan for the long-term antibiotic therapy was not located. During an interview, on 6/5/23 at 11:05 a.m., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) indicated a resident on antibiotic medications should have a care plan. The resident was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-05 · 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 an indwelling catheter bag and tubing were off the floor for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for indwelling catheters. (Resident 10 and 38) Findings include: 1. During an observation, on 5/30/23 at 11:55 a.m., Resident 10 was in the dining room. The resident's catheter was placed in a dignity bag touching the floor and the tubing was laying on the floor under the wheelchair. The record for Resident 10 was reviewed on 6/2/23 at 2:25 p.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, generalized anxiety disorder, contracture of the right hand, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, major depressive disorder, Alzheimer's disease with late onset, chronic pain, retention of urine, and history of urinary tract infections. A care plan, dated 4/6/18, indicated the resident was at risk for infection related to use of a catheter due to the diagnosis of neurogenic bladder and urinary retention. Interventions included, but were not limited to, no symptoms of infection through next…
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 · D2023-06-05 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 ensure PRN (as needed) antianxiety medications were prescribed only for 14 days and reviewed for the need to continue the use for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident 35) Finding includes: The record for Resident 35 was reviewed on 6/2/23 at 9:20 a.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, anxiety disorder, delusional disorders, Alzheimer's disease with late onset, dementia in other diseases, and depressive disorder. A physician's order, dated 5/6/23 and open ended, indicated to give lorazepam (an antianxiety medication) 0.5 mg (milligrams) every 6 hours as needed. The Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 5/01/23 through 6/5/23, indicated the resident received the PRN lorazepam seven times after the 14th day. During an interview, on 6/5/23 at 10:50 a.m., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) was aware the PRN (as needed) lorazepam was not renewed after 14 days. The facility had overlooked the medication…
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 MAJOR HOSPITAL — 6 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 5 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLAXTON, RYAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/27/2025 |
| MILNER COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/01/2013 |
| JACKSON, RICHARD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/12/2013 |
| LI, WILLIAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 4 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.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1000K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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 155676. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-28, 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.