Trailpoint Village
1950 Ridgedale Rd, South Bend, IN 46614 · Government - County · 183 certified beds · (574) 291-6722 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602) — most recent Aug 2025
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- the CMS record shows $14,069 in federal fines (most recent 2025-06-16)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 2.9% | 11.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.6% | 5.5% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.4% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.3% | 1.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 20.2% | 25.2% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.3% | 3.9% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.2% | 11.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 25.6% | 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 | 5.8% | 3.6% | 4.7% | worse |
| 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 | 10.3% | 13.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.6% | 1.2% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.2% | 79.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.0% | 22.2% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.3% | 10.8% | 12.0% | typical |
‡ 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.
49.2% 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 47 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 48.8% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 41 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 0.18 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 18% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 34% 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 | 49.2%CMS range 37.9–65.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.5%CMS range 5.5–13.2 | 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 | 48.8% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 41.5% | 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 | 39.0% | 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 | 98.5% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 1.5% | 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 | 8.0%CMS range 4.5–13.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.10 | 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 183 beds and averages 107.1 residents a day — about 59% occupied, or roughly 76 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 3.57 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.67 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.10 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 2.96 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.82 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.72 to 0.54 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-06-16 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a CNA (Certified Nurse Assistant) followed the resident's comprehensive care plan and the facility's Mechanical Lift/Hoyer Lift Safety procedure during a transfer from the resident's wheelchair to bed. This resulted in the resident falling to the floor and sustaining multiple fractures and requiring hospitalization. (Resident B) The Immediate Jeopardy began on 5/29/25 at 4:28 P.M., when a CNA failed to follow a resident's comprehensive care plan and transferred a resident, via a Hoyer lift, from a wheelchair to the bed, without assistance. This deficient practice resulted in a fall, from a Hoyer sling, to the ground, in which the resident sustained multiple fractures and requiring hospitalization. The Administrator, the Director of Nursing and Regional [NAME] President were notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 6/13/25 at 11:36 A.M. The deficient practice was corrected on 6/6/25, prior to the start of the survey, and was therefore past noncompliance. Finding includes: On 6/12/25 at 1:28 P.M., a review of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-13 · 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
Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to updated/revise a comprehensive person-centered care plan for nutritional needs related to continued weight loss (Resident B), for 1 of 21 residents reviewed for care plans.Finding includes:During an interview, with Resident B's daughter, she indicated she had a concern regarding her mother's ongoing weight loss.On 4/10/2026 at 9:01 A.M., Resident B's medical record was reviewed. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, anxiety, and osteoporosis.A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 3/18/2026, indicated Resident B had severe cognitive impairment, required set up assistance for eating and had experienced a weight loss of 5% or more in the past month and 10% or more in the past 6 months.Resident B weighed 130 pounds on October 1, 2025. However, by November 18, 2025 she had lost weight and only weighted 120 pounds which resulted in an over 7.5% weight loss in a little over a month. A Care Plan initiated, on 12/20/2024 and updated on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-13 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to initiate a recommended restorative program after therapy for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for rehabilitation. (Resident 14)Finding includes:During an interview, on 4/8/2026 at 1:45 P.M., Resident 14 indicated she was able to walk prior to surgery, had received rehabilitation, but the insurance company had cut her therapy. Resident 14 indicated she could now only walk a few steps to get to the toilet, and the therapy department have been planning to start a restorative program for ambulation. A record review for Resident 14 was completed on 4/9/2026 at 11:00 A.M. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to: chronic pain constipation, conversion disorder with seizures or convulsions and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). An Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 3/23/2026, indicated Resident 14 was cognitively intact, had no extremity impairment, required partial/moderate assistance for walking 10 feet and walking 50 feet was not attempted due to her medical condition and/or safety. 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 · D2026-04-13 · 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 a medication error rate of less than 5%, related to the omission of prescribed doses and medications for 4 of 31 medications observed during medication administration. These medication errors resulted in an error rate of 7.75% (Residents 39 & 112). Findings include:1. During a medication administration observation, on 4/10/2026 at 8:34 A.M., RN 3 prepared medications for Resident 39. She prepared the following medications:-bupropion hydrochloride 300 milligrams one tablet-calcium-Vitamin D3 600 milligram-10 microgram one tablet- ferrous fumarate 325 milligrams one tablet- fluoxetine 20 milligrams one tablet- magnesium oxide 400 milligrams one tablet- omeprazole 20 milligrams one capsule- multivitamin one tablet- liquid protein 30 milliliters- pregabalin 100 milligrams one capsule A record review for Resident 39 was completed on 4/10/2026 at 9:02 A.M. Resident 39 had orders for lactobacillus acidophilus 10 billion cell 1 tablet. The medication had not been administered during the medication pass…
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 · D2025-08-15 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse was free from abuse, when a previous staff member verbally abused the resident while exiting the facility following her resignation, (Resident C). Finding includes: On 8/14/25 at 12:00 P.M., Resident C's clinical record was reviewed. Diagnoses included but were not limited to osteomyelitis, type 2 diabetes with diabetic polyneuropathy, and spinal stenosis. Resident C's Care Plans included but were not limited to, Resident displays verbal aggression towards others when feeling frustrated with them, initiated on 7/30/25. Review of a facility Incident Number 668, reported to the State Agency on 8/8/25, indicated on 8/8/25 at 4:01 P.M., Resident C reported that the previous Unit Manager, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 5, went up to him on her way out of the facility and spoke rudely to him after telling him she had quit. The staff member had resigned and was terminated from the system when an investigation was initiated. All appropriate parties were notified. Staff and residents were…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-16 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent the misappropriation of narcotics for 1 of 4 residents receiving narcotics reviewed. (Resident C) Finding includes: On 6/12/25 at 12:16 P.M., a review of the clinical record for Resident C was conducted. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to: respiratory failure with hypoxia-tracheostomy, diabetic neuropathy, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), diabetes and chronic kidney disease. A current Care plan for pain, initiated on 4/28/25, indicated the resident was at risk for pain related to impaired mobility and diabetic neuropathy. The interventions included, but were not limited to: notify physician if pain is unrelieved and/or worsening, assist with positioning to comfort, administer medications as ordered and document effectiveness of pain medications. A Nursing Progress Note, dated 5/15/25 at 7:56 A.M., indicated the previous shift had reported the resident's narcotics had been held since 2:00 P.M. on 5/14/25. In addition, they had reported the resident had slept most of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-16 · 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 acted competently and followed facility protocol regarding notification and assessment of a licensed nurse after a resident experienced a fall prior to moving the resident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for falls. (Resident B) Finding includes: On 6/12/25 at 1:28 P.M., a review of the clinical record for Resident B was conducted. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to: chronic respiratory failure with dependence on ventilator, artificial opening of gastrointestinal tract-gastrojejunostomy tub (G-tube), cerebral palsy, paraplegia, and an anxiety disorder. A Fall Event form, dated 5/29/25 at 5:10 P.M., indicated CNA 3 reported the resident had fallen out of the side of the Hoyer pad during a transfer. CNA 3 reported she had used her body to guide the resident's fall to the floor. The Respiratory Manager had assisted CNA 3, immediately after the fall, with positioning the Hoyer pad back underneath the resident and then assisted to transfer Resident B back into his bed. The form indicated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-02-28 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were labels and stored according to professional priniciples on 3 of 4 medication carts observed. (Memory Care, 100 Hall & 400 Hall) Findings include: 1. On 2/27/2025 at 9:30 A.M., a medication storage observation was completed with RN 2 on the Memory Care cart, the following was observed: An opened, undated and unlabeled bottle of calcium magnesium with zinc capsules. In addition, there was a bottle of One a Day Men 50 + vitamin supplement with only a resident's first name written on the lid of the bottle. During an interview on 2/27/2025 at 9:40 A.M., RN 2 indicated a family member had brought them in and the bottles should have had labesl and an opened date on them. 2. On 2/27/2025 at 10:47 A.M., a medication storage observation was completed with RN 3 on the 100 Hall cart and the following was observed: Three bottles of prescirption eye drops were stored the same drawer as oral medications. One of three bottles of eye drops was not labeled with complete instructions regarding which eyes…
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 · D2025-02-28 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure advanced directives were coordinated with hospice for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for hospice services. (Resident 28) Finding includes A record review for Resident 28 was completed on 2/26/2025 at 9:45 A.M. Diagnosis included, but were not limited to occlusion and stenosis of right posterior cerebral artery, metabolic encephalopathy, dementia, schizoaffective, borderline personality, bipolar, and aortic stenosis. A Physicians Order dated 11/25/2024, indicated the resident was a full code. Resident 28's care plan, initiated on 11/26/2024, indicated the resident and/or the resident's legal representative preferred a full code status. A Physician's Order dated 2/11/2025 indicated an order for hospice for Resident 28 for end of life care. Review of the hospice initial plan of care, dated 2/10/2025, indicated an advanced directives of Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) code status. A Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST) form, signed on 2/10/2025 indicated Resident 28's code status was now a DNR. The facility was not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-03-01 · 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 observation and interview the facility failed to ensure food preparation areas and equipment was clean and that food was stored in a sanitary manner. The facility failed to ensure employees utilized hygienic practices when handling food delivery items, and washed their hands after handling the trash receptacle. This had the potential to affect all residents receiving food from the kitchen. Findings include: 1. During an initial observation of the kitchen with the Dietary Manager (DM), on 2/26/2024 at 9:45 A.M., the handwashing sink was dirty. Vents in the ceiling were dirty with dust collected in the slats. Pans used in the steam table were stacked together wet. The oven had a burnt substance on the bottom. The sneeze guard on the steam table was dirty with food substances dripping down. During an interview, on 2/26/2024 at 10:00 A.M., the DM indicated the handwashing sink, oven, and sneeze guard should have been clean, the vents in the ceiling were going to be replaced, and the pans should have been dry before stacking. 2. During an observation of the kitchen with the DM, on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-03-01 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medication storage areas were free from loose pills, failed to date medications when opened, and failed to ensure a medication refrigerator was free from ice buildup, for 4 of 6 medication storage areas observed. (#1 & #2 400 Hall medication carts, 100 Hall medication cart, & medication room) Findings include: 1. A medication storage observation on the #1 400 hall medication cart was completed on 2/27/2024 at 2:36 P.M., with LPN 7. There were 2 loose pills in the cart. During an interview, on 2/27/2024 at 2: 39 P.M., LPN 7 indicated the loose pills should not be in the drawer. 2. During a medication storage observation, on 2/27/2024 at 2:45 P.M., on the #2 400 hall medication cart with RN 8, the following was observed: - An opened and undated bottle of guaifenesin. - An opened and undated bottle of Robitussin. During an interview, on 2/27/2024 at 2:52 P.M., RN 8 indicated the medications should be dated when opened. 3. A medication storage observation on the 100 hall medication cart was completed on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-01 · 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 provide adequate supervision to prevent a resident from falling out of bed during care, for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident 34) Finding includes: During an interview, on 2/27/2024 at 8:58 A.M., Resident 34 indicated he had fallen out of bed about two months ago during care, and was sent to the hospital. A record review for Resident 34 was completed on 2/28/2024 at 3:16 P.M. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to: morbid obesity, chronic respiratory failure, dependence on a ventilator, and chronic kidney disease. A Significant Change MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 12/10/2023, indicated the resident required extensive physical assistance from two staff members for bed mobility and toilet use, required supervision with set-up help for eating, and transferring occurred 1-2 times with 2 or more staff assist. An admission MDS assessment, dated 1/25/2024, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. A Care Plan, dated 6/5/2019, indicated the resident required the assist of 2 staff members 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 · D2024-03-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to properly store a BIPAP mask to prevent contamination, for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for respiratory care. (Resident 56) Finding includes: During an observation, on 2/27/24 at 10:43 A.M., Resident 56's oxygen mask was laying on her bedside table outside of a bag, and the mask appeared dirty with an oily substance noted around the seal. During an observation, on 2/29/24 at 2:31 P.M., Resident 56's BIPAP mask was laying on the table and not in a bag. The mask had a dirty substance around the seal. During an observation, on 3/1/2024 at 9:11 A.M., Resident 56's BIPAP mask was laying on the bedside table and not in a bag. The mask remained dirty around the seal. A record review for Resident 56 was completed on 2/28/24 at 2:43 P.M. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia, quadriplegia, and hypertension. A Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 12/19/23, indicated Resident 56 had moderate memory impairment. 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 · D2023-08-29 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a clean, safe, and sanitary environment for 1 of 3 resident reviewed environment. (Resident B) Findings include: On 8/25/23 at 1:00 P.M., the clinical record for Resident B was reviewed. The resident's Face Sheet, indicated he was most recently admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included pneumonia, stroke, gastrostomy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic respiratory failure. Resident B's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/21/23, indicated the resident was admitted to room [ROOM NUMBER] on 6/15/23. On 8/28/23 at 11:08 A.M., a facility grievance dated 6/15/23 at 3:00 P.M., was provided by the Administrator and indicated, Resident B's wife complained that room [ROOM NUMBER] was filthy and there were bugs everywhere. The grievance indicated the Director of Marketing and Admissions looked at room [ROOM NUMBER] and found garbage in the trash and floors were dirty and bugs were in the room and 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.
“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
$14,069 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $14,069 — penalty dated 2025-06-16
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to AMERICAN SENIOR COMMUNITIES — 90 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 3.9 | -1.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 3.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
The other 89 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.9★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 89; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| DICE, MARK | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 06/01/2023 |
| HANBERG, STEVEN | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 08/18/2017 |
| MYERS, JANINE | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 10/30/2023 |
| VAN CAMP, STEVEN | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 09/06/2019 |
| DRUMMER, CARL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2017 |
| HANIFY, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2022 |
| HORN, BRENDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/01/2023 |
| LAZARD, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/29/2021 |
| MANTRAVADI, GEETA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 07/21/2021 |
| PAYNE, MONICA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 08/09/2021 |
| BABCOCK, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/30/2020 |
| CAINE, VIRGINIA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/10/1994 |
| HARRIS, LISA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/22/2003 |
| AMERICAN SENIOR COMMUNITIES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/01/2015 |
| BRADFORD, KATRINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/11/2020 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — 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.
About 74% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.2M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. 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 155103. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-13, 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.