Waters Of Rushville Skilled Nursing Facility, The
612 E 11th St, Rushville, IN 46173 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 98 certified beds · (765) 932-4127 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- a high number of inspection citations overall (31) — 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)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
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) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 1 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 | 3.6% | 11.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.7% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.8% | 0.4% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.5% | 1.1% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 37.7% | 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 | 5.1% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.6% | 11.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.5% | 23.5% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.0% | 3.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.2% | 23.3% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.4% | 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 | 57.9% | 79.0% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 13.9% | 22.2% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.4% | 10.8% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.39 | 1.61 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.69 | 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.
42.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 49 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
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 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 48% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 18% 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 | 42.2%CMS range 30.9–53.2 | 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 | 12.7%CMS range 8.4–19.2 | 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 | 47.6% | 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 | 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 | 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 | 6.4%CMS range 3.3–13.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.34 | 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 98 beds and averages 50.8 residents a day — about 52% occupied, or roughly 47 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 3.08 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.58 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.75 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 2.79 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.19 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.65 to 0.40 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 54% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
31 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 21 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-22 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 a resident's personal and medical information were protected from possible observation by other persons in the area during 5 medication administration observations with 5 staff and 11 residents. (Resident F and LPN 4)Findings include:During a medication administration observation on 8-21-25 at 1:16 p.m., a facility computer laptop was observed opened to Resident F's medical administration record, which had the resident's name and medical information visible. The computer was located on top of the medication cart, near the nurses' station and was visible for anyone walking near or by the medication cart. No staff were observed in the area until 1:20 pm. At that time, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 4 returned to the medication cart. In an interview at 1:21 p.m., with LPN 4, she indicated she had been pulled away for care related to another resident and did not take the time to secure the computer.During a review of Resident F's medical record on 8-22-25 at 11:50 a.m., the record indicated she had…
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 · D2025-08-22 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
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 staff members correctly administered medications as ordered for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for accuracy of medication receipt. (Resident E and QMA 5)Findings include:In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8-20-25 at 3:40 p.m. She indicated there was a medication error that had occurred since the most recent annual survey at the end of June 2025, and was identified on the day after it occurred. She indicated the staff member did not check the resident's medication administration record (MAR) as that staff member would have found out the pain medicine had been DC'd [discontinued]. I preach to the staff to read and double check those MAR's.A review of the progress notes for 7-16-25, failed to identify any documentation of Resident E receiving a dose of as needed, or PRN pain medication on the evening of 7-16-25. The Controlled Drug Receipt Record/Disposition Form, for Resident E's oxycodone 5 milligrams (mg) indicated Qualified Medication Aide (QMA) 5, administered one dose of this medication on 7-16-25…
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 before2025-08-22 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 medication that had been discontinued was not administered by facility staff to 1 of 4 residents reviewed for accuracy of medication receipt. (Resident E, QMA 5)Findings include:In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8-20-25 at 3:40 p.m. She indicated this was the only medication error that had occurred since the most recent annual survey at the end of June 2025, and was identified on the day after it occurred. She indicated the staff member did not check the resident's medication administration record (MAR) as that staff member would have found out the pain medicine had been DC'd [discontinued]. I preach to the staff to read and double check those MAR's.The clinical record of Resident E was reviewed on 8-21-25 at 3:28 p.m. His diagnoses included, but were not limited to, lung cancer.A review of the progress notes for 7-16-25, failed to identify any documentation of Resident E receiving a dose of as needed, or PRN pain medication on the evening of 7-16-25. The Controlled Drug Receipt…
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 before2025-08-22 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication was stored safely in the absence of staff for 1 of 1 medication during 5 medication administration observations with 5 staff and 11 residents. (Resident F and LPN 4)Findings include: During a medication administration observation on 8-21-25 at 1:16 p.m., a packet of medication, labelled, phenazopyridine 100 mg with one tablet inside and labelled for Resident F was observed lying on top of medication cart, located near the nurses' station. No staff were observed in the area until 1:20 pm. At this time, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 4 returned to the medication cart. In an interview at 1:21 p.m., with LPN 4, she indicated she had been pulled away for care related to another resident and did not take the time to secure the medication into the medication cart in her absence. The medication cart was observed to be locked during this time.In a review of Resident F's medications on 8-22-25 at 11:50 a.m., she was physician ordered to receive phenazopyridine 100 milligrams every 8 hours for…
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 before2025-06-27 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to have a Registered Nurse (RN) on duty at the facility for 5 of 30 days reviewed for RN coverage. This had the potential to affect 43 of 43 residents that reside in the facility. Findings include: Review of the schedules provided by the Director of Nursing (DON), on 6/25/25 at 12:44 p.m., indicated the facility did not have RN coverage, 8 hours a day, on 1/7/25, 1/21/25, 1/22/25, 1/25/25, and 1/26/25. During an interview with the DON on 6/25/25 at 12:44 p.m., she indicated the facility did not have RN coverage on 1/7/25, 1/21/25, 1/22/25, 1/25/25 and 1/26/25. The DON indicated there was no resident care and/or assessments not completed due to no RN in the building on those dates. The DON indicated there was no negative outcome for residents on these dates due to no RN coverage. During an interview conducted with the Administrator on 6/26/25 at 1:33 p.m., she indicated the facility did not have a policy on sufficient nurse staffing. The facilities expectation was to have RN coverage for 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-27 · 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
2. During an interview with Resident B on 6/24/25 at 12:32 p.m., they indicated the resident had to wait up to 30 minutes for the call light to be answered. The resident indicated they had a cell phone and timed how long they had to wait. Resident B indicated because they had to wait 30 minutes, it caused them to be incontinent of bowel and bladder. The resident indicated it was embarrassing to have the Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) clean them up when this happened. The resident indicated they could not get out of bed by themselves due to frequent falls. Resident B indicated the weekends were when it happened the most. The resident did report this to the staff at the time it happened. Review of the Record of Resident B, on 6/25/25 at 1:20 p.m., indicated the diagnoses included, but were not limited to, weakness, lack of coordination, osteoarthritis, congestive heart failure, and repeated falls. The Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 5/13/25, indicated the resident was cognitively intact for daily decision making. The resident was consistent and reasonable. The resident had no behaviors.…
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 before2025-06-27 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 2. The clinical record for Resident 12 was reviewed on 6/26/25 at 11:25 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, type 1 diabetes mellitus. She was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The physician's orders indicated to administer ten units of insulin lispro (fast-acting insulin) injection solution 100 UNIT/ML (units per milliliter) with meals, effective 6/15/25; 15 units twice daily, effective 3/7/25; and sliding scale for blood sugar readings as follows, effective 6/15/25: 151 - 200 = two units; 201 - 250 = four units; 251 - 300 = six units; 301 - 350 = ten units; 351 - 400 = 12 units, subcutaneously three times a day, and to call the physician if blood sugar reading was below 60 or above 400. The 5/14/25 physician's order indicated to set up an appointment with Resident 12's endocrinologist. This order was revised on 6/2/25 to include the specific endocrinologist. The 6/11/25 nursing progress note indicated, Called and left a message with endocrinology [name of endocrinologist] through [name 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 · D2025-06-27 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
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-up on optometry (eye and vision professional) recommendations and orders for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for optometry services. (Resident 25) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 25 was reviewed on 6/25/25 at 9:42 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, migraines and glaucoma. The Annual Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 4/24/25, indicated Resident 25 was cognitively intact and had a diagnosis of glaucoma. During an interview with Resident 25 on 6/24/25 at 10:52 a.m., she indicated she was waiting to hear something back from the facility about going back to the eye doctor. Resident 25 indicated she had been seen in February of 2025, but had not heard when she would be seen again about her eyes and new glasses. An Eye Care Chart Note, dated 2/11/25, was provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/26/25 at 9:55 a.m. The note indicated the follow-up orders included: Return in 2-4 months for IOP (Intraocular Pressure) check and to return in 1-3 months for ERG…
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 · D2025-06-27 · tag F0745 — failed to provide medically-related social services — isolatedProvide medically-related social services to help each resident achieve the highest possible quality of life.
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 timely coordinate counseling services for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident 12) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 12 was reviewed on 6/26/25 at 11:25 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, histrionic personality disorder, mild binge eating disorder, anxiety, and depression. She was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The 2/3/25 PASRR (Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review) Level 2 care plan indicated the goal was for her Level 2 needs to be met at the facility. An intervention was mental health services-individual therapy, initiated 2/3/25. The 2/3/25 care plan indicated Resident 12 had a mood problem related to little interest in doing things, feeling down, difficulty sleeping, feeling tired, and being restless. The goal was for her to have improved mood state through the next review date. The 1/29/25 care plan indicated 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 · D2025-06-27 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician instructions for medication administration were followed for 1 of 4 residents observed during 1 of 3 medication administrations with 1 of 3 staff. (Resident D and Qualified Medication Aide 2) Findings include: During a medication administration observation on 6-23-25 at 7:32 p.m., Qualified Medication Aide (QMA) 2 was observed to prepare oral medications for Resident D, plus, he indicated he was to remove the resident's Lidocaine 5% patch, with directions to apply the patch topically to the lower back every 12 hours for pain and to remove the patch at bedtime. This order had an effective date of 6-11-25. The medication administration record (MAR) indicated Resident D had refused this medication on the morning of 6-23-25. QMA 2 was observed to query Resident D if he could remove the patch during the administration of the oral medications. Resident D responded there was not a patch on his back. QMA 2 was not observed to request of Resident D if he could observe the area in order to verify if a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 21 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-27 · 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safety precautions were adhered to by failure to keep a medication cart locked and unsupervised during 1 of 3 medication administration observations with 1 of 3 staff and failed to ensure labeling of three insulin syringes, located in the west hall medication cart, included the dates each were opened or the date to dispose of the insulin during an observation of the medication carts for of 2 of 4 medication carts observed. (Resident 18, Qualified Medication Aide 2, and Registered Nurse 3) Findings include: 1. During a medication administration observation on 6-23-25 at 7:42 p.m., with Qualified Medication Aide (QMA) 2, the lighter colored medication cart on the east hall was observed to be unlocked, upon return to the medication cart after provision of medication to a resident. The cart was located in the hall, directly in front of the nurse's station and accessible to anyone passing by the medication cart. Upon bringing this to the attention of QMA 2 at that time, he indicated, My bad. I guess I…
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 before2025-06-27 · 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
2. On 6-23-25 at 7:46 p.m., during a medication administration observation, QMA 2 was observed to prepare five (5) oral medications for Resident 99. Those medications and their physician instructions included the following: - atorvastatin 40 milligrams (mg) at bedtime for elevated blood fats. - tab-a-vite one tablet once daily for unspecified vitamin deficiency. - hydroxyurea 500 mg twice daily on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and once daily on Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday for gout: wear gloves when handling or crushing; do not crush. - furosemide 40 mg twice daily for congestive heart failure. - metoprolol succinate extended-release 50 mg twice daily for high blood pressure. QMA 2 was observed to touch each medication with his bare hands during the preparation of the medications. When queried about touching the hydroxyurea with his bare hands and the labeled instructions, he responded, I guess I didn't see that. When queried regarding touching each pill with bare hands, he indicated that he should not have done that and would now need to replace the medications. On 6-27-25…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-21 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was admitted to the facility with a pressure ulcer received thorough assessment upon admission, initiated a treatment timely for an identified pressure ulcer, and initiated treatment changes per the wound provider promptly for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Resident C) This deficient practice was corrected on 2/14/25, prior to the start of the survey, and was therefore past noncompliance. The facility implemented a systemic plan that included the following actions: in-service education to nursing staff related to the policy and procedure regarding pressure ulcers, reviewed all wound reports from the wound care provider for January and February of 2025 to identity potential residents, and conducted a review of residents with pressure ulcers to ensure assessments have been completed and documented with ongoing review presented to the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee for review. Findings include: 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 before2025-02-21 · 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 3 of 3 residents reviewed for falls had a minimum of 72 hours post-fall assessments, including neurological (neuro) checks as appropriate. (Residents B, F and G) Findings include: 1. The clinical record of Resident B was reviewed on 2-19-25 at 2:56 p.m. His diagnoses included, but were not limited to, alcohol dependency with unspecified withdrawal, weakness, difficulty in walking and repeated falls. An admission note, dated 1-23-25 at 10:43 p.m., indicated he was weak and unsteady with his balance and gait. A fall risk assessment, dated 1-23-25, indicated he was at high risk for falls. His admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 1-27-25, indicated he was moderately cognitively impaired, and he had sustained falls in the one month and two to six month time periods prior to admission. Resident B's care plans addressed both cognitive impairments and being at risk for falls. A nursing progress note, dated 1-28-25 at 5:45 a.m., indicated Resident B sustained an unwitnessed fall and was found lying on the floor…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-21 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 residents who admitted to the facility had their orders transcribed correctly into the electronic health record (EHR) that resulted in medication errors for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for medication administration. (Resident D) This deficient practice was corrected on 2/12/25, prior to the start of the survey, and was therefore past noncompliance. The facility implemented a systemic plan that included the following actions: in-service education to nursing staff related to the policy and procedure regarding transcribing physician orders and the admission process, reviewed all newly admitted residents to identity potential residents, and ongoing review of newly admitted residents during the morning clinical meetings have been completed and documented with ongoing review presented to the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee for review. Findings include: The clinical record for Resident D was reviewed on 2/20/25 at 2:10 p.m. The diagnoses…
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 before2024-03-28 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
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 eight hours of consecutive RN coverage for 9 of 91 days reviewed. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 34 residents. Findings include: The PBJ (Payroll Based Journal) Staffing Data Report CASPER Report 1705D FY (Fiscal Year) Quarter 1 2024 (October 1 - December 31) reviewed on 3/25/2024 at 1:45 p.m. indicated that nine days were noted without eight hours of consecutive RN coverage. An interview on 3/26/24 at 1:34 p.m. with Corporate Payroll indicated that he did not report any RN coverage for those aforementioned nine days due to no RN being on the skilled nursing facility. An interview with Regional Nurse Consultant on 3/27/2024 at 1:20 p.m. indicated that the facility was unable to find RN coverage for that time. During that time, they were utilizing their own staff and agency, but could not fill RN coverage consistently. An interview with Regional Nurse Consultant on 3/27/2024 at 2:20 p.m. indicated they did not have a specific policy for RN coverage, but the facility would follow the Center for…
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 before2024-03-28 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately code Section J regarding falls for 2 of 17 residents reviewed for Minimum Data Set accuracy. (Resident 14 and Resident 16) Findings include: 1. The clinical record for Resident 14 was reviewed on 3/25/2024 at 2:45 p.m. The medical diagnosis included dementia. An Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 1/27/2024, indicated Resident 14 had one fall without injury during that review period. A nursing progress note, dated 1/13/2024, indicated that Resident 14 was found lying on her right side on her floor mat with a bruise to the right elbow. 2. The clinical record for Resident 16 was reviewed on 3/25/2024 at 2:10 p.m. The medical diagnosis included dementia. An Annual MDS Assessment, dated 9/26/2023, indicated that Resident 16 had one fall without injury during that review period. An intradisciplinary note for Resident 14, dated 8/23/2023, indicated she had a fall that resulted in head laceration requiring staples for closure. An intradisciplinary note for Resident 14, dated 9/13/2023, indicated she had…
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 before2024-03-28 · 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 observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately monitor residents for bruising per physician order for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for bruising. Findings include: 1. The clinical record for Resident 14 was reviewed on 3/25/2024 at 2:45 p.m. The medical diagnosis included dementia. An Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment, dated 1/27/2024, indicated Resident 14 was cognitively impaired and at risk for developing skin impairments, but did not have any alternations in skin. A bruising care plan, dated 2/6/2020, indicated to monitor skin daily during care. A physician order for Resident 14, dated 12/14/2022, indicated to monitor three times a day for chronic bruising to her bilateral arms. A physician's order for Resident, dated 1/24/2022, indicated for Resident 14 to utilize aspirin 81 milligrams (mg) every day. An observation on 3/25/2024 at 11:37 a.m. indicated she was sitting in the common area in her wheelchair. She was noted to have long sleeves that were slightly pulled up. A moderate sized bruise with a scabbed area was noted to her left…
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 before2024-03-28 · 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 implement a pressure relieving intervention as ordered by the podiatrist for a resident with an unstageable pressure ulcer (full thickness tissue loss ulcer covered by eschar) on the right heel for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident 4). Finding include: During an observation and interview with Resident 4 on 3/25/24 at 1:06 p.m., indicated she had a pressure ulcer on her right heel, the physician told her on 3/21/24 when she seen him in his office. The resident indicated the physician told her to keep it off the ground. The resident was observed to be sitting in her wheelchair with her right heel directly on the floor. During an observation on 3/26/24 at 11:05 a.m., Resident 4 was sitting in the dining room with her right heel on floor. During an observation and interview on 3/26/24 at 12:28 p.m., Resident 4 sitting in her room in wheelchair with her right heel on the floor, she indicated she had worn an off-loading boot before, but had not been offered one with this pressure ulcer on her…
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 · D2024-03-28 · 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 in interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a left-hand protector or brace was available for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for contractures. (Resident 2) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 2 was reviewed on 3/26/2024 at 2:05 p.m. The medical diagnosis included heart failure. An Annual Minimum Data Set Assessment indicated Resident 10 had moderate cognitive impairment. An interview and observation with Resident 10 on 3/25/2024 at 1:22 p.m. indicated that her left hand does hurt sometimes and her contracture to the left hand has worsened. She stated they used to use padding to her left palm about a year ago, but the staff gave up on using it after it was lost. She was open to trying to utilize something to her left hand for her contractures. She stated there is nothing in her room they used for her hand, and nothing was visible on the surfaces like a hand brace or palm protector. An interview and observation with Resident 2 on 3/26/2024 at 1:00 p.m. indicated 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-28 · 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, observation, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the fall mat was in place for a resident while in bed for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for falls. (Resident 7) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 7 was reviewed on 3/26/2024 at 11:00 a.m. The medical diagnosis included dementia. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment, dated 2/15/2024, indicated that Resident 7 was cognitively impaired. A nursing assessment, dated 3/22/2024, indicated that Resident 7 was at high risk for falls. A physician order, dated 1/3/2023, indicated for Resident 7 to .have a mat on the floor by her bed, while she is in it An observation on 3/25/2024 at 11:46 a.m., indicated Resident 7 was laying in her bed at this time with her fall mat folded in three and stored between the foot of her bed and closet. An observation on 3/25/2024 at 1:20 p.m., indicated Resident 7 was laying in her bed at this time with her fall mat folded in three and stored between the foot of her bed and closet. She had a bottled drink in her hand at this time. An observation and interview 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 · D2024-03-28 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to timely enter a resident with a significant weight loss into the Skin and Weight Assessment Team (SWAT) program for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for significant weight loss. Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 14 was reviewed on 3/25/2024 at 2:45 p.m. The medical diagnosis included abnormal weight loss. Weights for Resident 14 were record as: 2/1/2024 - 99.8 lbs. (pounds) 3/1/2024 - 94.3 lbs. (-5.51% from 2/1/2024) 3/2/2024 - 92.1 lbs. (-7.72% from 2/1/2024) A SWAT note, dated 3/21/2024, indicated new interventions of including a power pudding to the lunch tray for Resident 14. An interview with the Regional Nurse Consultant on 3/27/2024 at 1:20 p.m. indicated that no SWAT notes were found for Resident 14 between 3/1/2024 and 3/21/2024. A policy entitled, SWAT PROGRAM (SKIN AND WEIGHT ASSESSMENT TEAM) was provided by the Regional Nurse Consultant on 3/26/2024 at 10:55 a.m. The policy indicated, .It is the policy of this facility to assess the nutritional status of each resident .These residents will be monitored…
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 · D2024-03-28 · tag F0710 — isolatedObtain a doctor's order to admit a resident and ensure the resident is under a doctor's care.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to timely inform Resident 14's provider of a significant weight change for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for nutritional needs. Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 14 was reviewed on 3/25/2024 at 2:45 p.m. The medical diagnosis included abnormal weight loss. Weights for Resident 14 were record as: 2/1/2024 - 99.8 lbs. (pounds) 3/1/2024 - 94.3 lbs. (-5.51% from 2/1/2024) 3/2/2024 - 92.1 lbs. (-7.72% from 2/1/2024) An intradisciplinary note from 3/21/2024, that addressed Resident 14's weight loss, did not indicate the physicians was notified of the weight loss. An interview with the Regional Nurse Consultant on 3/27/2024 at 1:20 p.m. indicated she could not locate in the medical record where the attending physician was notified of the significant weight loss for Resident 14.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-28 · 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 in interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a pharmacy recommendation was completed in a timely manner for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. (Resident 2) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 2 was reviewed on 3/26/2024 at 2:05 p.m. The medical diagnosis included heart failure. An Annual Minimum Data Set Assessment indicated Resident 10 had moderate cognitive impairment. A pharmacy recommendation, printed on 10/15/2023, contained a recommendation regarding a gradual dose reduction of Resident 2's antidepressant. This recommendation was not signed by a practitioner until 12/14/2023 agreeing with the reduction in her antidepressant. A correlating physician order to reflect the reduction in Resident 2's antidepressant was entered in the medical record on 12/19/2023. An interview with the Regional Nurse Consultant on 3/27/2024 at 2:20 p.m. indicated she had no further information to provide regarding the pharmacy recommendation. A policy entitled, Policy and Procedure-Pharmacy Recommendations, was provided by the Regional Nurse…
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 · D2024-03-19 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a prescription narcotic was not administered to a resident without an appropriate prescription for the narcotic for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for correct receipt of medications. (Resident C) Findings include: In an interview on 3-19-24 at 9:27 a.m., with a family member of Resident C, she indicated she remained upset that it took over 14 hours before family was notified of the medication error. They told me the nurse did not tell them and they did not find the error until the next day and that I was notified as soon as they were made aware of the error. A progress note for Resident C, dated 2-26-24 at 2:40 p.m. indicated, NP [nurse practitioner] approached AODN [Assistant Director of Nursing] this shift, res [resident] has stated to NP that she had received 2 Tramadol at HS [bedtime] on 2-25-24, ADON [Assistant Director of Nursing] confirmed that res did received [sic] medications, vs [vital signs] obtained, POA [power of attorney], admin [administrator], DON [Director of Nursing], notified, will cont [continue] 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 · D2024-03-19 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 their medication administration error rate remained under five (5) percent during 3 observations with 4 staff and 11 residents. (Residents E,and G) Findings include: 1. During a medication pass observation on 3-18-24 at 4:50 p.m., with Resident E, RN 4 was observed to administer one tablet of omeprazole 20 milligrams (mg). Upon reconciliation of Resident E's physician orders, the order indicated to administer omeprazole 20 mg in the evening at 3:00 p.m. This indicated the medication was given outside of the accepted practice of medications being administered within one hour before or after their scheduled time. In an interview with RN 5 on 3-19-24 at 8:40 a.m., she indicated it was facility policy to administer medications within a one hour window of the scheduled medication administration time. 2. During a medication pass observation on 3-18-24 at 4:59 p.m. with Resident G, RN 4 was observed to administer 4 units of Humalog insulin via a Humalog Kwikpen device subcutaneously into the right deltoid. RN…
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 before2024-03-19 · 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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection control measures of handwashing and hand-hygiene were utilized during a medication pass administration observation conducted during 3 observations with 4 staff and 11 residents. (Residents E, F and G, ) Findings include: During a medication pass observation on 3-18-24 between 4:50 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., RN 4 indicated she wears gloves for medication passes. Upon completion of medication administrations to Residents E, F and G, RN 4 was observed to remove and discard her gloves, then obtain a single alcohol pad and wipe the palm of each of her hands with the alcohol pad. When queried about this practice, RN 4 responded she did not have any alcohol hand-sanitizer on her medication cart and the large container of alcohol hand-sanitizer was located on the desk at the nurse's station. In an interview on 3-19-24 at 12:35 p.m., with the Administrator, the Administrator was informed of concerns related to handwashing and hand-hygiene practices during a medication pass observation on 3-18-24, with RN 4.…
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 · D2023-10-31 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop care plans related to the use of a wanderguard (safety device used as an audible alarm to notify staff of an exit or elopement attempt from a secured area) for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for the use of wanderguards. (Resident B and E) Findings include: 1. The clinical record of Resident B was reviewed on 10-30-23 at at 2:55 p.m. His diagnoses included, but were not limited to a history of traumatic brain injury (TBI), unspecified encephalopathy, viral hepatitis, falls and mild neurocognitive disorder. His most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 8-29-23, indicated he has moderate cognitive impairment, is ambulatory without use of an assistive device and did not indicate any wandering behaviors during the look-back period of the assessment. A review of Resident B's assessments for wandering and elopement reflected his admission assessment on 7-3-23 for wandering was a moderate risk, but he was not an elopement risk. Wandering risk assessments on 7-6-23 and 8-5-23 were unchanged. However, 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 before2023-10-31 · 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 adequate supervision, related to the use of a wanderguard (safety device used as an audible alarm to notify staff of an exit or elopement attempt from a secured area), for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for the use of wanderguards. (Resident B and E) Findings include: 1. The clinical record of Resident B was reviewed on 10-30-23 at at 2:55 p.m. His diagnoses included, but were not limited to a history of traumatic brain injury (TBI), unspecified encephalopathy, viral hepatitis, falls and mild neurocognitive disorder. His most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 8-29-23, indicated he has moderate cognitive impairment, is ambulatory without use of an assistive device and did not indicate any wandering behaviors during the look-back period of the assessment. A review of Resident B's assessments for wandering and elopement reflected his admission assessment on 7-3-23 for wandering was a moderate risk, but he was not an elopement risk. Wandering risk assessments on 7-6-23 and 8-5-23 were unchanged.…
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 · D2022-12-16 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to complete a significant change of condition assessment within 14 days of change of condition for a resident electing hospice service for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for significant change of condition. (Resident 37) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 37 was reviewed on 12/15/2022 at 02:50 p.m. The medical diagnoses included, but were not limited to, heart failure and malignant neoplasm of the prostate. A physician order, dated 12/13/2022, indicated to admit to hospice effective 10/4/2022 for diagnoses of health failure with a life expectancy of 6 months of less if the terminal illness runs its normal course. No Significant Change Minimum Data Set Assessment was completed in October 2022. An interview with Minimum Set Assessment Corporate Support on 12/15/2022 at 3:10 p.m. indicated that a Significant Change MDS Assessment should be completed within 14 days of election of hospice services. It was identified that Resident 37 did not have a SCSA completed and one was scheduled for 12/14/2022. The Center for…
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 before2022-12-16 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to accurately indicate weight gain/loss for Resident 28, dehydration for Resident 29 and failed to indicated hospice services and prognosis of 6 months or less for Resident 37 for 3 of 6 residents for accuracy of Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments. Findings include: 1. The clinical record for Resident 28 was reviewed on 12/15/22 02:56 p.m. The medical diagnoses included, but were not limited to, intracerebral hemorrhage and diabetes mellitus. The following weights were recorded for Resident 28: 1/5/2022 145.9 lbs. (pounds) 2/23/2022 136.4 lbs. 3/2/2022 134.4 lbs. 3/16/2022 134.6 lbs. 4/13/2022 129.7 lbs. 4/20/2022 130.0 lbs. 5/3/2022 137.8 lbs. 5/23/2022 133.9 lbs. 6/1/2022 133.1 lbs. 6/6/2022 133.2 lbs. 6/15/2022 135.8 lbs. 7/6/2022 139.8 lbs. 8/3/2022 136.1 lbs. 9/7/2022 137.7 lbs. 10/5/2022 139.8 lbs. 11/11/2022 139.1 lbs. 11/30/2022 145.5 lbs. 12/12/2022 143.9 lbs. A Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 11/10/2022 indicated Resident 28 had a weight gain and a weight loss. 2. The clinical record for Resident 29 was reviewed 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.
“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 INFINITY HEALTHCARE CONSULTING — 69 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 | 2.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
The other 68 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.0★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 68; 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JOHNSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 03/01/2013 |
| BUSALD, AMBER | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 11/01/2021 |
| DECOLA, ROBERT | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 02/16/2019 |
| BERKHOUSE, STEVEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/18/2021 |
| DUNKLE, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/01/2019 |
| THE WATERS OF RUSHVILLE SKILLED NURSING FACILITY LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 6 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.
This home reported $559K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 10% 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 155053. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-27, 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.