Valparaiso Care & Rehabilitation
606 Wall Street, Valparaiso, IN 46383 · Non profit - Corporation · 164 certified beds · (219) 464-4976 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (30) — 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 | 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 | 2 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 fell from 2 to 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 | 4.5% | 11.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.0% | 5.5% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.4% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.3% | 1.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 21.1% | 25.2% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.3% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.6% | 11.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 32.5% | 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 | 3.3% | 3.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.2% | 23.3% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.2% | 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 | 96.3% | 79.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 35.5% | 22.2% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.7% | 10.8% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.98 | 1.61 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.64 | 1.44 | 1.80 | 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.
52.0% 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: 25.6% 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 39 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 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 12% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% 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 | 52.0%CMS range 35.0–66.1 | 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 | 11.4%CMS range 7.5–17.7 | 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 | 25.6% | 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 | 25.6% | 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 | 23.1% | 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 | 95.5% | 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 | 1.6% | 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 3.1–11.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.17 | 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 164 beds and averages 136.5 residents a day — about 83% occupied, or roughly 28 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 3.40 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.60 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.00 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 3.00 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.56 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.67 to 0.44 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 50% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
30 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 20 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-16 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were administered medications and accuchecks (blood sugar testing) as ordered, for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for medications and accuchecks. (Residents B, K, and D)Findings include:1. During an interview on 4/15/26 at 9:53 a.m., Resident B indicated she did not always get her medications as ordered by the physician. Resident B's record was reviewed on 4/15/26 at 11:27 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, diabetes mellitus and neuropathy. Physician's Orders, dated 1/29/26, indicated gabapentin (for nerve pain) 400 milligrams (mg) to be given four times a day, scheduled for 8:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m., and 8:00 p.m., and hydroxyzine HCL (antihistamine) 25 mg to be given every six hours, scheduled at 12:00 a.m., 6:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m., and 6:00 p.m. The Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 3/15/26 to 4/14/26, indicated the gabapentin had not been administered on 3/20/26 at 4:00 p.m. and 4/4/26 at 8:00 a.m. The hydroxyzine HCL had not been administered on 3/18/26 at 12:00 a.m. and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-16 · 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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5% for 2 of 5 residents observed during medication pass. Three errors were observed during 27 opportunities for errors during medication administration. This resulted in a medication error rate of 11.1%. (Residents M and N)Findings include:1. During an observation on 4/15/26 at 4:39 p.m., LPN 4 prepared Resident M's 4:00 p.m. medication of metoclopramide (stomach medication) 10 milligrams (mg). She placed one tablet in the plastic cup and indicated there was one tablet in the cup and she was ready to administer the medication. LPN 4 was stopped prior to entry of the room. She indicated the label on the medication card was metoclopramide 10 mg, administer 20 mg and indicated he should have two tablets of the medication.Resident M's record was reviewed on 4/16/26 at 8:40 a.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, type one diabetes.A Physician's Order, dated 2/10/25, indicated metoclopramide 20 mg was to be administered four times daily at 8:00 a.m., 12:00…
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 before2026-04-16 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain clinical records that were complete and accurately documented related to behavior documentation for 1 of 12 records reviewed. (Resident B)Finding includes:An Indiana Department of Health reported incident, dated 3/28/26 at 8:01 a.m., indicated Resident B voiced an allegation of abuse against staff at the facility.The undated investigation of the incident indicated undated interviews were completed with CNA 1, CNA 2, LPN 1, and LPN 2. The staff indicated the resident had been yelling and calling staff vulgar names.There was no documentation in the progress notes that indicated the allegation had been voiced nor the behaviors of the resident.During an interview on 4/15/26 at 3:41 p.m., LPN 1 indicated she thought LPN 2 was taking care of the documentation.During an interview on 4/16/26 at 4:11 a.m., LPN 2 indicated she had not charted the incident since she had not witnessed the incident.This citation relates to Intake 2970538.410 IAC (Indiana Administrative Code) 16.2-3.1-50(a)(1)410 IAC 16.2-3.1-50(a)(2)
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-20 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a gastrostomy tube (feeding tube) feeding was administered and documented at the rate ordered by the physician to assist with pressure wound healing for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for feeding tubes with pressure ulcers. (Resident E) Finding includes:During observations on 2/18/26 at 8:41 a.m., 2/18/26 at 11:30 a.m., and 2/19/26 at 2:25 p.m., Resident E was lying in bed and the liquid feeding of Jevity 1.5 calories was infusing at 45 cubic centimeters (cc's) per hour.During an interview on 2/18/26 at 11:30 a.m., the Wound Care Nurse Practitioner indicated the resident had two unstageable pressure sores (full thickness wounds) observed on admission, one on the left buttock and one on the left ischium. Both areas were still present and improving.Resident E's record was reviewed on 2/19/26 at 1:52 p.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited cerebral palsy and gastrostomy tube.A Care Plan, dated 2/3/26, indicated enteral feeding…
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 before2025-12-17 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents received the necessary treatment and services related to the lack of assessment and monitoring of skin discolorations for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for non-pressure related skin conditions. The facility also failed to ensure residents received medications as ordered by the physician for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis, 1 of 2 residents reviewed for constipation/diarrhea, and 1 of 1 resident reviewed for insulin administration. (Residents 10, 8, 3, and 18)Findings include:1. On 12/11/25 at 3:19 p.m., Resident 10 was observed sitting on a couch in the lounge area. There were purple discolorations observed to the tops of both hands. On 12/15/25 at 9:04 a.m., Resident 10 was observed sitting at a dining room table. The discolorations were still observed. On 12/16/25 at 10:08 a.m., Resident 10 was observed sitting at a dining room table. The discolorations were still observed. There were also 2 small scabbed areas observed to the top of his left hand and a discoloration to his left forearm.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-12-17 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a clean and sanitary kitchen related to dirty shelves, carts and the walk in refrigerator in the main kitchen. This had the potential to affect the 109 residents who received meals prepared in the kitchen.Findings include:During the initial kitchen tour on 12/11/25 at 9:15 a.m. with the Kitchen Manager, the following was observed:a. In the walk-in refrigerator, there was a white powdery substance build up on the motor fan, and patches of whitish substance on the ceiling and walls. There was a musty odor present in the refrigerator.b. There were two carts near the door to the dining room that had crumbs, dried liquid and food substances spilled on the shelves.c. The shelves below the counter had crumbs, liquid spillage and food substances.During an interview with the Dietary Manger during the kitchen tour, she indicated they cleaned the shelves weekly and she had tried to get the substance off the refrigerator walls and ceiling but was unable to remove it.During an interview on 12/11/25 at 10:15 a.m., the Maintenance…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-12-17 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary, safe, and homelike environment related to accident hazards observed to the hallway on the dementia unit during construction, and dirty resident care equipment on both units. (Cottage, East Unit, [NAME] Unit) Findings include:1. On 12/11/25 at 10:30 a.m., the Cottage Dementia Unit was observed. There were multiple residents and staff observed in the dining area and lounge area. The hallway to the resident rooms had two fire doors closed. The door did not have windows to see into the hallway. Upon opening the door to the hallway, there was someone standing on a ladder. The door was then closed and staff were asked if people were able to go back there. The Memory Care Support Specialist (MCCS) indicated anyone could go back into the hallway. The facility staff were keeping the doors closed due to the dust coming from the construction that was taking place in the hallway. Upon entering the hallway, there were multiple construction workers in the hallway. There were drop cloths observed on the ground 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 · D2025-12-17 · 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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was accurately completed related to restraints, antipsychotic medication, and tube feeding for 3 of 26 MDS assessments reviewed. (Residents 59, 11, and 79) Findings include:1. Record review for Resident 59 was completed on 12/16/25 at 10:58 a.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, dementia with behavioral disturbance, anxiety disorder, and type two diabetes mellitus. The Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 10/22/25, indicated the resident had not received any antipsychotic medication since the prior assessment. The prior MDS assessment was dated 8/1/25. The Physician's Order Summary, dated 12/2025, indicated Risperdal Consta (an antipsychotic medication) 25 milligrams (mg)/2 milliliters (ml), give 25 mg intramuscular injection every 2 weeks. The Medication Administration Record, dated10/2025, indicated the resident had received a Risperdal injection on 10/9/25. During an interview on 12/17/25 at 11:39 a.m., the MDS Coordinator indicated there was a data entry…
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 before2025-12-17 · 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 interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's care plan was updated related to a suprapubic urinary catheter and enhanced barrier precaution isolation use for 2 of 26 residents whose care plans were reviewed. (Resident 2 and 79) Findings include:1. On 12/17/25 at 9:50 a.m., Resident 2 was observed in his bed while the Wound Nurse changed pressure ulcer dressings. Resident 2 had a suprapubic catheter that was draining clear yellow urine to gravity. Resident 2's record was reviewed on 12/12/25 at 3:17 p.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, obstructive and reflux uropathy (blockage in the urinary system that prevents normal urine flow and urine flowing backward from the bladder to the kidneys) and acute and chronic respiratory failure. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 10/22/25, indicated the resident was severely impaired for daily decision making. The resident had an indwelling urinary catheter. A Physician's Order, dated 9/30/25, indicated the resident had a Foley catheter size 18 Fr with a 30…
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 · D2025-12-17 · 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
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a hand splinting device was in place as ordered and restorative nursing care was provided as ordered for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for range of motion. (Resident 81)Finding includes: On 12/11/25 at 11:12 a.m. and 12/15/25 at 9:39 a.m., Resident 81 was observed in his bed. There was no hand splint or carrot in the resident's hand left hand which was contracted. On 12/15/25 at 1:27 p.m., the resident was in bed and there was no splint in place to the left hand. The resident indicated he was not receiving restorative nursing services but would like to.The resident's record was reviewed on 12/15/25 at 9:50 a.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, hemiplegia (paralysis affecting one side of the body) left side, heart failure and unspecified mood disorder.The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/14/25, indicated the resident was cognitively intact and was dependent for bed mobility, transfers and toileting. The resident had not received any therapy or restorative nursing services…
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 20 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-17 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to monitor nutritional intake for meals for a resident with history of weight loss for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for nutrition. (Resident 5) Finding includes:During an interview on 12/11/25 at 12:42 p.m., Resident 5's family member indicated he had weight loss recently and had been having problems eating. Record review for Resident 5 was completed on 12/16/25 at 9:06 a.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, dementia, hypertension, anxiety, tremors, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing food or liquids). The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE].The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 11/17/25, indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The resident required a setup for eating and had a weight loss of 5% or more. A Care Plan, dated 11/13/25 and revised 12/10/25, indicated the resident was a nutritional risk and had a significant weight loss. An intervention included to monitor the food and fluid intake at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-17 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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 a resident with a gastrostomy tube (g-tube, feeding tube) received care and services as ordered by a Physician related to treatment of the area around the insertion site for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for tube feeding. (Resident 79)Finding includes:On 12/12/25 at 9:44 a.m., Resident 79 was observed sitting up in bed. The resident indicated she had a gastrostomy tube used for tube feedings and it had been bleeding for the last two months. The gastrostomy tube was observed with a split gauze that was soiled with dark colored drainage from the insertion site. Resident 79's record was reviewed on 12/15/25 at 2:52 p.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, gastrostomy and tracheostomy status. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/4/25, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Tube feeding was not marked. A Physician's Order, dated 4/1/25, indicated cleanse the gastrostomy site with soap and water, pat dry, and apply gauze every shift. A Care Plan, dated 12/2/24, indicated 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 before2025-12-17 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain clinical records that were complete and accurately documented related to medication administration for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis. (Resident 8)Finding includes:Record review for Resident 8 was completed on 12/17/25 at 2:04 p.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, hypertension, end stage renal disease, and obstructive uropathy. The admission MDS assessment, dated 11/11/25, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The resident received antidepressant, diuretic, and antiplatelet medications. The resident received dialysis services.The December 2025 Physician's Order Summary indicated orders for the following medications:-furosemide (to treat fluid retention) 40 mg (milligrams) every day-losartan (manages high blood pressure) 50 mg every day-dialysis at dialysis center on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 11:00 a.m.The 2025 November and December Medication Administration Records indicated the medications were not administered on the following dates and times due to dialysis. The medications…
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 before2025-12-17 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure infection control measures were implemented related to an indwelling urinary catheter bag on the floor for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for urinary catheters (Resident 62), glove use during tracheostomy care for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for tracheostomy care (Resident 2) and lack of orders and care plans for enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for transmission based precautions. (Resident 141)Findings include:1.On 12/11/25 at 3:15 p.m. and 12/12/25 at 9:15 a.m., Resident 62 was observed lying in his bed. His indwelling urinary catheter bag was lying on the floor. On 12/12/25 at 9:28 a.m., LPN 1 was standing at the resident's bedside doing nail care. The catheter bag was lying on the floor next to her. When asked if it should be on the floor, the nurse then picked it up and hung it on the side of the bed. The resident's record was reviewed on 12/12/25 at 3:06 p.m. Diagnoses included, but was not limited to, metabolic encephalopathy, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-09 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored properly, with appropriate labeling and not expired, for 2 of 4 medication carts observed. (East Cart and Cottage Cart) Findings include: 1. On [DATE] at 1:28 p.m., the following was observed on the East Cart with LPN 1: - A Basaglar KwikPen (insulin) was dated with an open date on [DATE]. - A Rezvoglar KwikPen (insulin) was dated with an open date on [DATE]. - A Toujeo SoloStar (insulin) pen was opened with no open date written on the pen. - A Basaglar KwikPen was opened with no open date written on the pen. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:35 p.m., the East Unit Manager indicated the open insulins should have been dated and disposed of 30 days after opening. 2. On [DATE] at 1:41 p.m., the following was observed on the Cottage Cart with QMA 1: - An insulin lispro vial was dated with open date on [DATE]. - A Lantus (insulin) pen was opened with no open date written on the pen. - An insulin lispro pen was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-09 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide privacy related to a shared bathroom for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for privacy. (Resident 57) Finding includes: During an interview on 8/6/24 at 9:23 a.m., Resident 57 indicated she felt she lacked privacy in the bathroom because she had to share the bathroom with the two men residing in the room next door. She no longer utilized the toilet due to her continence status, but felt she should be able to go in the bathroom to wash her hands or face without a man opening the door or worrying a man could be coming in the bathroom while she was in there. On 8/6/24 at 9:44 a.m., Resident 57's bathroom was observed. The shared bathroom was located in between her room (room [ROOM NUMBER]) and the room next door (room [ROOM NUMBER]). There were doors on each side of the bathroom leading to the resident rooms. There were 2 male residents currently residing in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The record for Resident 57 was reviewed on 8/8/24 at 4:19 p.m. 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 · Dcited before2024-08-09 · 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 interview, the facility failed to ensure care plans were reviewed and revised to include changes related to resident infections and dialysis access points for 2 of 29 resident care plans reviewed. (Residents 69 and 57) Findings include: 1. On 8/6/24 at 9:17 a.m., Resident 69 was observed in his room. The resident indicated he had a surgical wound to the top of his right foot. He had been under precautions at one time for having an infection. He no longer had the infection and was not on precautions any longer. There were no signs posted for any TBP (Transmission Based Precautions) or any PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) bins located inside or outside of the room. Record review for Resident 69 was completed on 8/9/24 at 9:50 a.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, heart failure, hypertension, diabetes mellitus and a history of MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus - bacterial infection). The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 7/5/24, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-09 · 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 observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with edema was monitored or treated for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for edema (Resident 18), medications were given as scheduled and accuchecks were documented for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Residents 91 and 120) Findings include: 1. On 8/6/24 at 1:41 p.m., Resident 18 was observed seated in her room in a wheelchair. Her legs were elevated with the footrests and she indicated they were swollen. On 8/7/24 at 1:19 p.m. the resident was seated in her room in a wheelchair, her call light was on. She indicated she wanted someone to put the footrests on her wheelchair so she could elevate her legs because they were swollen. On 8/9/24 at 1:12 p.m., the resident was seated in her room in a wheelchair. She indicated her legs had been swollen for about a month and she had told the nurses about it, but did not know what they were doing about it. The resident's record was reviewed on 8/7/24 at 2:40 p.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, diabetes mellitus, heart…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-09 · tag F0694 — isolatedProvide for the safe, appropriate administration of IV fluids for a resident when needed.
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 care for a PICC (peripherally inserted central catheter, intravenous catheter placed into the peripheral veins of the upper arm) line in accordance with professional standards of practice, related to flushing the PICC line for 1 of 5 residents observed during medication pass. (Resident 3) Finding includes: During medication pass, the Infection Preventionist (IP) was observed preparing an intravenous medication for Resident 3 on 8/8/24 at 2:13 p.m. The IP prepared meropenem (an antibiotic) reconstituted solution 1 gram per 100 cc of normal saline. She washed her hands and donned clean gloves. She bent the connection between the 100 cc normal saline bag and the vial of meropenem, squeezed the normal saline into the vial, and then shook the vial to dissolve the meropenem powder medication. She held the vial above the bag and squeezed air from the bag into the vial to force the liquid back into the bag. She spiked the normal saline bag with new tubing and primed the tubing. She connected the tubing thru the pump…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-09 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received the necessary care and treatment related to incorrect oxygen flow rate and a humidity bottle not changed for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for respiratory care. (Resident 70) Finding includes: On 8/5/24 at 1:29 p.m., Resident 70 was observed in a wheelchair. He had a nasal cannula in place and attached to a portable oxygen tank on the back of the wheelchair. The flow rate was set at 4 liters per minute (lpm). On 8/6/24 at 9:08 a.m., the resident was observed lying in bed with a nasal cannula in place attached to the portable oxygen tank. The tank was set to a flow rate of 4 lpm. The oxygen concentrator was also on and set at 4 lpm. The water bottle on the concentrator was dated 7/29/24. The resident's record was reviewed on 8/7/24 at 1:22 p.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Parkinson's disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 7/31/24, indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment and required…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-09 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services for residents who received hemodialysis, related to not monitoring the dialysis access site, for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis. (Resident 57) Finding includes: During an interview on 8/6/24 at 9:23 a.m., Resident 57 indicated she went to dialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. She had a right upper arm graft for her current dialysis access. She also had an old right arm fistula, but it was not working any longer. The record for Resident 57 was reviewed on 8/8/24 at 4:19 p.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, end stage renal disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. The Significant Change Minimum Data Set assessment, dated 6/21/24, indicated the resident was cognitively intact and received hemodialysis. A care plan, updated 7/17/24, indicated the resident received hemodialysis. Interventions included, .assess dialysis access site every shift for excessive bleeding, drainage, swelling, redness, warmth, bruit/thrill. Document findings .…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-09 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) was placed in enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for high contact resident care activities, and for improper glove use for 1 of 5 residents reviewed during medication administration. Finding includes: During medication pass, the Infection Preventionist (IP) was observed preparing an intravenous medication for Resident 3 on 8/8/24 at 2:13 p.m. Upon entrance to Resident 3's room, there was no signage noted in or around the doorway for EBP and no personal protective equipment bins. The IP prepared meropenem reconstituted solution (an antibiotic) 1 gram per 100 cc of normal saline. She washed her hands and donned clean gloves. She bent the connection between the 100 cc normal saline bag and the vial of meropenem, squeezed the normal saline into the vial, and then shook the vial to dissolve the meropenem powder medication. She held the vial above the bag and squeezed air from the bag into the vial to force the liquid back into the bag. She…
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 · D2023-10-25 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 allegations of abuse were reported to the Indiana Department of Health (IDOH) immediately or within the 2 hour time period for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for abuse. (Residents F and G) The facility also failed to ensure an allegation submitted was not misleading with the facts reported by the resident. (Resident F). Findings include: 1. During an interview on 10/23/23 at 9:56 a.m., Resident F indicated a staff member had thrown water in her face. She had reported the incident to the Nurse. Resident F's record was reviewed on 10/24/23 at 2:53 p.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, chronic respiratory failure and dementia. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 9/20/23, indicated a moderately impaired cognitive status and she required oxygen, suctioning, and a tracheostomy. A Progress Note, dated 10/14/23 at 1 p.m. and written by the Memory Care Social Service Director, indicated the resident's daughter had provided details about an incident that had occurred. A reported incident to IDOH…
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 · D2023-07-14 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Care Plan was developed for a resident who received an antidepressant medication for 1 of 24 residents reviewed for Care Plan development. (Resident 64) Finding includes: Resident 64's record was reviewed on 7/11/23 at 1:46 p.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia and Diabetes Mellitus. The resident was ventilator dependent. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/29/23, indicated the resident took antidepressant medication 7 of 7 days during the assessment period. The current Physician's Orders indicated the resident took Trazodone (an antidepressant), 50 milligrams, every 12 hours. The record lacked a Care Plan for antidepressant medications. Interview with the MDS nurse on 7/12/23 at 2:18 p.m., indicated there should be a Care Plan in place for the antidepressant and there was not. She would implement it at that time. 3.1-35(a)
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-14 · 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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure pressure offloading boots were in place as ordered for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Resident 90) Finding includes: On 7/10/23 at 10:19 a.m., Resident 90 was observed lying in bed watching television. There were no pressure offloading boots in place to his feet. On 7/12/23 at 10:35 a.m., Resident 90 was observed lying in bed with his eyes closed. No pressure offloading boots were in place to his feet. The boots were on the empty bed on the other side of the room. Two CNAs entered the room to assist the resident with getting out of bed. On 7/12/23 at 11:23 a.m. Resident 90 was observed seated in his Broda chair in the Main Dining Room. The pressure offloading boots were not in place to his feet. Resident 90's record was reviewed on 7/11/23 at 2:33 p.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, dementia, congestive heart failure, and anemia. The Significant Change MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 6/27/23, indicated the resident was not cognitively intact, was at risk 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 · D2023-07-14 · 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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was supervised and orders were obtained for an electronic cigarette for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for smoking. (Resident 44) Finding includes: On 7/11/23 at 10:20 a.m. Resident 44 was observed in bed with an electronic cigarette at his bedside. On 7/11/23 at 1:40 p.m. Resident 44 was observed sitting up in his bed smoking his e-cigarette. Interview with the resident at this time indicated that he bought his own refills for his electronic cigarettes and his family would bring them to him. The record for Resident 44 was reviewed on 7/12/23 at 1:17 p.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, muscular dystrophy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (restrictive airway), and depression. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/27/23, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Staff assistance was needed for mobility, transfers and toileting with supervision for eating. A Care Plan, updated on 6/30/23, indicated the resident has a history of of attempting to smoke in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-07-14 · tag F0694 — isolatedProvide for the safe, appropriate administration of IV fluids for a resident when needed.
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 care for a PICC line (peripherally inserted central catheter, intravenous catheter placed into the peripheral veins of the upper arm) in accordance with professional standards of practice, related to flushing the PICC line and changing the PICC site dressings for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for intravenous care. (Resident 90) Finding includes: On 7/10/23 at 10:19 a.m., Resident 90 was observed lying in bed watching television. There was a PICC line in place to his right upper arm. It was covered with a wrap and the date on the site dressing was unable to be seen. Resident 90's record was reviewed on 7/11/23 at 2:33 p.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, dementia, congestive heart failure, and anemia. The Significant Change MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 6/27/23, indicated the resident was not cognitively intact and had received IV (intravenous) medications. A Physician's Order, dated 6/22/23, indicated new PICC line to the right arm. A Physician's Order, dated 6/20/23 and discontinued on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-07-14 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such 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 residents with pain were assessed and monitored related to lack of non-pharmacological pain interventions, pain was not assessed for severity or location, and parameters were not in place for use of pain medication for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for pain. (Residents 64 and 28) Findings include: 1. Resident 64's record was reviewed on 7/11/23 at 1:46 p.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, sacrum pressure ulcers, neuropathy and Diabetes Mellitus. The resident was ventilator dependent. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/29/23, indicated the resident had received an opioid medication 5 of 7 days during the assessment period. The resident's cognitive status was unable to be assessed and he was dependent on two staff for bed mobility and transfers. A current Physician's Order indicated to give Norco (an opioid pain medication), 5 milligrams(mg)/325 mg, every 4 hours as needed for pain. A current Physician's Order indicated to give Tylenol, 650 mg,…
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 · D2023-07-14 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident's medication regimen was managed and monitored to promote or maintain the resident's highest practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial well-being, related to ensuring a pain medication was available and given as ordered by the Physician for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident 86) Finding includes: Resident 86's record was reviewed on 7/14/23 at 9:46 a.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, spinal stenosis (narrowing of the spine), hypertension (high blood pressure), heart failure, diabetes, depression, low back pain, gout, difficulty walking, and muscle weakness. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 5/31/23, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. A Physician's Progress Note, dated 7/6/23 at 5:08 p.m., indicated the resident's chief complaint was neck pain. Assessment indicated he had failed 1 spinal injection and was to go back for another treatment shortly. Assessment plan for neck pain included, biofreeze as needed and scheduled…
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 before2023-07-14 · 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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5% for 1 of 7 residents observed during medication pass. Two errors were observed during 27 opportunities for errors during medication administration. This resulted in a medication error rate of 7.41%. (Resident 91) Finding includes: On 7/14/23 at 8:04 a.m., QMA 1 was observed preparing medications for Resident 91. She prepared 6 pills and 1 liquid medication and administered them to the resident. The resident's medications were reconciled on 7/14/23 at 8:25 a.m. The July 2023 Medication Administration Record indicated the resident was to receive potassium, 20 milliequivilants daily and Restasis eye drops, 1 drop in each eye, twice daily. Both medications had been signed out as given during the observed medication pass with QMA 1, however they had not been observed as given. Interview with the QMA, on 7/14/23 at 10:55 a.m., indicated she had missed the potassium. She indicated she gave the eye drops later that morning, but she was unable to locate the eye drops in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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 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 | 1 of 5 | 3.9 | -2.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 3.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.3 | -1.3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| KELSEY, DONNA | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 06/01/2016 |
| STORDY, DAVID | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 09/15/2016 |
| VAN CAMP, STEVEN | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 09/06/2019 |
| BABCOCK, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/30/2020 |
| AMERICAN SENIOR COMMUNITIES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/01/2009 |
| NEELY, JENNIFER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/21/2019 |
| WILLIAMS, AMY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/01/2019 |
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 83% 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 $1.4M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 155166. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-17, 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.