Waters Of Wabash Skilled Nursing Facility West
1720 Alber St, Wabash, IN 46992 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 44 certified beds · (260) 563-4112 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (28% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- 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
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 8.2% | 11.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 11.8% | 5.5% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 0.0% | 1.1% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 24.5% | 25.2% | 6.5% | typical for the state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.2% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.9% | 11.9% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 17.6% | 23.5% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 95.4% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.9% | 3.6% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.7% | 23.3% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 31.3% | 13.6% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.2% | 1.4% | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.14 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 11% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 44 beds and averages 26.7 residents a day — about 61% occupied, or roughly 17 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 3.53 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.72 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.16 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 3.13 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.70 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.74 to 0.64 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 28% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-10-15 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to promote resident dignity during transportation following a shower in the shower room for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for dignity. (Resident F) Findings include:Resident F's clinical record was reviewed on 10/15/25 at 9:55 a.m. Diagnoses included stroke affecting right non dominant side, mild intellectual disability, weakness, unsteadiness on feet, and cognitive communication deficit. An 8/11/25, admission, Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment indicated she used a walker and wheelchair. She had upper extremity impairment on one side of her body. She was substantial/ maximal staff assistance for showering, upper and lower body dressing, toileting hygiene and tub/shower transfer.A progress note, on 8/6/25 at 10:40 p.m., indicated Resident F had fallen forward from the shower chair while coming out of the shower. The right front wheel fell off the shower chair causing Resident F to fall forward. Resident F hit her head on the floor causing a laceration above her right eye. Resident F did not lose consciousness and remained alert.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-07 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff performed hand hygiene during 3 of 3 medication administration observations. (Resident 13, Resident 3, and Resident 12)Findings include:During a medication administration observation on 8/6/25 at 11:09 a.m., Qualified Medication Aide (QMA) 4 removed one medication for Resident 13 from the [NAME] Hall medication cart. Prior to removing the medication, the QMA did not perform hand hygiene. She popped one pill from a blister pack into a medication cup and poured water into a plastic drinking cup. QMA 3 entered Resident 13's room and administered the medication. The QMA did not perform hand hygiene during the observation.During a medication administration observation on 8/6/25 at 11:13 a.m., QMA 4 removed one medication for Resident 3 from the [NAME] Hall medication cart. Prior to removing the medication, the QMA did not perform hand hygiene. She popped one pill from a blister pack into a medication cup and poured water into a plastic drinking cup. QMA 4 entered Resident 3's room, administered the medication, then…
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 · D2024-07-18 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide assistance with eating for 1 of 1 reviewed for ADLs. (Resident B) Finding includes: During a dining observation, beginning on 7/16/24 at 11:57 a.m., Resident B had not eaten any of her lunch as of 12:41 p.m. Her eyes were closed, and she had a utensil in her hand. At 12:45 p.m., QMA 6 picked up the resident's spoon and offered the resident green beans. During an interview following the observation, QMA 6 indicated Resident B was able to feed herself, but had insomnia and fell asleep frequently during the day and required reminders to eat. QMA 6 first prompted her to eat at 12:45 p.m. During an observation, on 7/17/24 at 8:41 a.m., four residents were in the dining room. No staff were present. Resident B was talking incoherently and fidgeting with her glasses. She had eaten a few bites of eggs. Housekeeper 4 entered the dining room at 8:46 a.m. and indicated that at least one nursing staff was required to be in the dining room…
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 · D2024-07-18 · tag F0732 — isolatedPost nurse staffing information every day.
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 staff information was posted in a prominent place, was readily accessible to residents and visitors, and was in a clear and readable format. Findings include: On 7/15/24, at 11:32 a.m., staffing information was not readily available at the nurses station towards the front doors of the facility. No information was available on the walls at the front of the facility. The front of the building was the main entrance into the facility. On 7/15/24, at 11:41, during an interview with the Administrator (Adm), she indicated the staff posting was on the wall outside of the Director of Nursing's (DON) door. The DON's office was located in the west hall of the facility, past the nurses desk, through a doorway, and on the left side of the hallway. On 7/16/24, at 12:05 p.m., nurse staffing was posted outside the DON's door. There were two plastic sleeves that contained two 8.5 x 11 sheets of paper with staffing information. The two documents were positioned on their sides. In order to view the documents, they had to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-18 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide food that was attractive and palatable. (Residents 5, 15, 18, and 21) Findings include: During an interview on 7/15/24 at 11:08 a.m., Resident 18 indicated she was not feeling well. She thought her blood glucose might be low. She had not eaten any breakfast that morning because she .could not face another peanut butter and jelly sandwich She described the food as awful. She complained repeatedly to the administrator and other staff about the palatability of the food. She finally resorted to eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches because that was the only thing she could tolerate. Carbohydrates were too many and there was not enough protein provided. The food was not properly seasoned and not appealing in appearance. During an interview on 7/18/24 at 10:42 a.m., Resident 5 indicated the food palatability varied. Sometimes the food was not bad, but other times it was not edible. It all depended on who was working in the kitchen. During an interview on 7/15/24 at 11:23 a.m., Resident 21 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 · D2024-07-18 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — isolatedEnsure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
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 provide a nourishing snack at bedtime when there was more than fourteen (14) hours between the evening meal and breakfast the next day. This had the potential to affect twenty four (24) out of twenty four (24) residents. (Residents 3, 16, 15, 18, 21, and 22) Findings include: During a resident council meeting on 7/17/24 at 3:04 p.m., Resident 15 indicated the facility used to provide snacks in the evening. Eventually, the snacks provided were only oatmeal pies. The night before the meeting, there were no snacks available at all. Resident 21 indicated the facility sometimes provided goldfish, oatmeal pies, or a sandwich. If the facility would run out of snacks, the residents did not get an evening snack. Resident 15 indicated residents would sometimes ask a kitchen staff member to hold food items for them. The staff member would do so. All residents present at the council meeting indicated snacks were not offered in the evenings. They could get snacks only when they asked for them and often, no snacks 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 · Dcited before2024-07-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for EBP (Resident 21) Findings include: Resident 21's clinical record was reviewed on 7/16/24 at 3:25 p.m. Diagnoses for the resident included, but were not limited to, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, morbid (severe) obesity due to excess calories, and non-pressure chronic ulcer of other part of left foot with unspecified severity. Current physician orders included, but were not limited to: 6/7/24 - An external ointment, mupirocin 2%, was to be applied to the left great toe topically every day and night shift. The wound was to be covered with dry, sterile gauze. 5/14/24 - A weight bearing as tolerated (WBAT) surgical shoe to be worn on the left foot. 5/6/24 - Monitor the left great toe each shift for signs and symptoms of infection, dressing placement, and surrounding tissue until healed. 2/8/24 - Notify the physician of any foul-smelling odor, red streaking up the leg, discolored drainage, and watch for infection,…
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 · D2024-02-01 · tag F0563 — failed to protect the right to visitors — isolatedHonor the resident's right to receive visitors of his or her choosing, at the time of his or her choosing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on, record review, and interview, the facility failed to accommodate visitation rights for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for resident rights. (Resident B) Finding includes: During an interview, on 2/1/24 at 11:18 a.m., Resident B indicated she wasn't allowed to have a friend enter the building for visitation. Outside visitation with her friend was allowed. Inside visitation was not permitted until documentation was provided to the facility of bedbug infestation treatment at his place of residence. Her friend was unable to afford treatment. During an interview, on 2/1/24 at 12:00 p.m., LPN 10 indicated the facility had limitations with one of Resident B's visitors. During an interview, on 2/1/24 at 12:17 p.m., the Administrator indicated that one specific visitor of Resident B was found to have brought bedbugs into the facility. They had the restricted visits to outside only. On 2/1/23 at 12:35 p.m., a facility document of a conversation between the resident and the Administrator, dated 11/6/23, was provided by the Administrator. The document indicated the Administrator spoke 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 · D2023-08-01 · 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 report resident-to-resident abuse for 1 of 2 resident altercations reviewed for State Agency reporting (Resident 6 and Resident 17). Findings include: During an interview on 7/27/23 at 10:15 a.m., Resident 6 indicated her previous roommate (Resident 17) and she argued periodically. The last time they argued, it became physical. Resident 6 was in bed when Resident 17 came over to her bed, grabbed Resident 6's face, and said Don't you ignore me. Resident 6's clinical record was reviewed on 7/27/23 at 1:27 p.m. Her diagnoses included multiple sclerosis, generalized anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and delusional disorder. Her medications included aripiprazole (antipsychotic) 2.5 mg (milligrams) daily and sertraline (antidepressant) 75 mg daily. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/14/23, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. She was totally dependent on the assistance of two staff members for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, and bathing.…
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 · D2023-08-01 · 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 report weight gains of 2 lbs (pounds) or greater for heart failure protocol, as ordered by the physician, for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident 5 and 16). Findings include: 1. During a random observation, on 7/26/23 at 10:12 a.m., Resident 16 was was sitting in a recliner with feet elevated, her eyes were closed, connected to oxygen via nasal cannula, and was opened-mouth breathing. During an interview, on 7/26/23 at 1:17 p.m., Resident 16 indicated she retained fluids, had trouble breathing for last couple of weeks, had started on oxygen the day prior, and had also had an X-ray taken. Her clinical record was reviewed on 7/28/23 at 1:27 p.m. Diagnoses included combined systolic and diastolic congestive heart failure, chronic atrial fibrillation, and shortness of breath. Current physician orders included the following; a. Heart failure: daily weight-after voiding and before breakfast and medications with same clothes every day. Notify physician of 2 lb gain in one day and 4 lb…
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 · D2023-08-01 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility to failed to provide adequate supervision for a resident with a history of falls and failed to develop and implement person-centered, individualized interventions to reduce the risk of falls, for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident 23). Findings include: Resident 23's clinical record was reviewed on 7/28/23 at 3:07 p.m. He had admitted to the facility on [DATE] and transferred to an acute hospital on 6/24/23. Diagnoses included pathological hip fracture, weakness, unsteadiness on feet, abnormalities of gait and mobility, and dementia. Physician orders included the following: a. Monitor incision to left hip each shift for signs/symptoms of infection or worsening, dressing placement, and surrounding tissue until healed, the order date was 6/1/23. b. Weight bearing as tolerated to left hip/leg, the order date was 6/1/23. c. Oxycodone (opioid)-acetaminophen 7.5-325 mg (milligram), one tablet every eight hours as needed for chronic pain, the order date…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to INFINITY HEALTHCARE CONSULTING — 69 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.0 | +2.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.1 | +1.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 1.5 | +1.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
The other 68 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.0★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 68; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JOHNSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 01/01/2015 |
| HANNAH, BRITTANY | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 09/01/2020 |
| LENON, ISAAC | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 08/04/2021 |
| DECOLA, ROBERT | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 02/16/2019 |
| BERKHOUSE, STEVEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 10/18/2021 |
| DUNKLE, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/01/2019 |
| MILLER'S HEALTH SYSTEMS INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2015 |
| THE WATERS OF WABASH SKILLED NURSING FACILITY WEST LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 11/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 11 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $212K 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 155627. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-07, 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.