No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Heritage Pointe Of Warren

801 N Huntington Ave, Warren, IN 46792 · Government - County · 119 certified beds · (260) 375-2201 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (260) 375-2201 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 11 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.

In its favor
  • 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
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)

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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
824 N Huntington Ave · (260) 375-2965 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1203 S Main St · (260) 824-1646 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
724 W 800 N · (765) 506-7475 · Call to confirm hours
Park
126 E 1st St · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
485 Bennett Dr · (260) 375-3873

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 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.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased11.0%11.0%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight2.7%5.5%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.9%0.4%0.9%typical
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.3%1.1%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.4%25.2%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury6.7%3.9%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened9.3%11.9%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication12.5%23.5%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine98.8%95.4%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers2.8%3.6%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control29.6%23.3%21.2%worse
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table32.9%13.6%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.5%1.2%1.4%typical
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine92.8%79.0%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission34.9%22.2%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit14.1%10.8%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days0.911.611.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.041.441.80better

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.

45.4% 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 72 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

45.4%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.5%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
57.1%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.41U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.14hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.24hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.03hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 57.1% 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 49 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 0.41 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 70% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF45.4%CMS range 34.4–58.151.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.5%CMS range 7.3–15.310.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge57.1%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge63.3%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge49.0%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified98.5%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge89.2%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.4%CMS range 3.8–12.87.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.671.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.60
RN hours/ resident / day
0.86
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.97
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.43
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.40
RN hoursweekends
41.5%
Total nursing turnover
46.7%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 119 beds and averages 89.6 residents a day — about 75% occupied, or roughly 29 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 4.43 hrs/resident/day is at or above 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 2.97 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.12 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.56 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.67 to 0.40 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 42% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

5
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-04-13)
3
at the previous standard inspection (2025-02-26)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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 · D2026-04-13 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to utilize infection prevention and control strategies to prevent contamination of a urinary catheter for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for indwelling catheters. (Resident 70)Findings include:During an observation, on 4/7/26 at 9:53 a.m., Resident 70's indwelling catheter drainage bag hung on the resident's bed frame. The bag touched the floor.On 4/8/26 at 10:58 a.m., Resident 70's indwelling catheter drainage bag hung on the resident's bed frame. The bag touched the floor.On 4/8/26 at 11:18 a.m., Resident 70 was laying on her back in her bed. Her indwelling catheter drainage bag hung on the top of the bed's footboard. The indwelling catheter tubing protruded from under the blanket at the foot of the mattress, ascended upwards, curved over the top of the footboard, and descended to insertion site on drainage bag. The tubing and bag were located above the level of Resident 70's bladder.On 4/8/26 at 2:28 p.m., Resident 70's indwelling catheter drainage bag hung on the resident's bed frame. The bag touched the floor.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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-13 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to securely store medications during a random observation of 1 of 6 medication carts (2B New End Medication Cart).Finding includes:During a random observation on the 2B hallway, on 4/9/26 beginning at 8:11 a.m., a medication cup with various pills was observed sitting on top of an unlocked medication cart left unattended in the hallway. No nursing staff members were in visual range of the cart. Activity Assistant 11 walked down the hall and stood by the medication cart, indicating she needed to speak with the nurse. At 8:13 a.m., RN 12 opened a resident's door across the hall and approached the medication cart. During an interview, at the time of the observation, she indicated the medication cart should not have been left unlocked, nor with medications sitting on top. The medications belonged to Resident 92 and were intended for his morning medication pass. RN 12 left the cart unlocked with the medications on top when the resident across the hall began yelling for help and was found to have urinated throughout…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    A. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was served and handled under safe and sanitary conditions for 2 of 19 residents observed during meal service. (Residents 3 and 57)B. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure universal precautions and hand hygiene were implemented during the administration of nasal spray for 1 of 4 residents observed during medication administration. (Resident 19) Findings include:A. During a lunch observation, on 4/6/26 at 12:10 p.m., the following was observed: CNA 4 pulled out a piece of bread with her bare hands from the plastic container. The bread was placed on Resident 3's tray. CNA 4 opened another plastic bag containing bread, removed that piece of bread with her bare hands. CNA 4 placed the second piece of bread on top of the first piece on Resident 3's tray. CNA 4 washed her hands with soap and water before walking over to Resident 57. She opened a plastic bag containing a piece of bread. CNA 4 removed the bread with her bare hands and placed it on Resident 57's tray. CNA 4…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-13 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolated
    Develop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide or offer eligible residents and/or the residents' representatives the current pneumococcal immunization according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations. (Resident 57 and Resident 73). Findings include: 1. Resident 73's clinical record was reviewed on 4/8/26 at 3:37 p.m. Diagnoses included type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, stage 3 a, and heart failure.Resident 73 received the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV) 13 on 7/14/17 and the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV) 23 on 11/28/18.An immunization consent, signed on 9/25/25, indicated the resident's representative wanted the resident to receive the most current pneumonia vaccine if eligible and indicated by the physician and have it administered by the facility, specifically the pneumococcal conjugate 20 (PCV 20).The clinical record lacked indication the resident was given the most current pneumonia vaccine, specifically the PCV 20 or the pneumococcal conjugate 21…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-04-13 · tag F0887 — isolated
    Educate residents and staff on COVID-19 vaccination, offer the COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents and staff after education, and properly document each resident and staff member's vaccination status.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to administer a COVID-19 vaccination per the Center for Disease and Control (CDC) guidance and per resident request for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for vaccinations. (Resident 70)Finding includes:Resident 70's clinical record was reviewed on 4/9/26 at 10:50 a.m. Diagnoses included pulmonary embolism without acute cor pulmonal (a blood clot in the lung artery that has not caused heart failure or strain), cerebral infarct (stroke), and hypertension (high blood pressure).A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 2/17/26, indicated her COVID-19 vaccination was not up to date.A review of the resident's vaccination history indicated the following:A vaccination consent form, dated 8/19/24, indicated the resident representative was provided education and consented to the administration of the most current COVID-19 vaccination.The clinical record lacked documentation of the administration of the appropriate COVID-19 vaccination. The clinical record lacked an updated or yearly COVID-19 vaccination consent or declination.…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    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 baseline tuberculin skin testing employed the two-step method within the required time frames for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for tuberculin testing. (Resident D and E) Findings include: 1. Resident E's clinical record was reviewed on 6/12/25 at 12:28 p.m. The first-step tuberculin skin test (TST) was given and read at the hospital prior to admission to the facility. The resident record lacked administration and reading of a second-step tuberculin skin test. 2. Resident D's clinical record was reviewed on 6/12/25 at 1:59 p.m. The first step TST was given on 5/26/25 at 8:46 p.m. and read on 5/28/25 at 3:58 p.m. During an interview, on 6/13/25 at 9:04 p.m., LPN 4 indicated residents were given a TST on admission which was read 48 to 72 hours later. A second step TST was given one to three weeks later and also read 48 to 72 hours after given. During an interview, on 6/13/25 at 11:39 a.m., LPN 3 tuberculosis testing was initiated immediately upon admission. The TST was read 48 to 72 hours after given. During an interview,…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-26 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolated
    Provide 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to complete post-dialysis assessments on 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis. (Resident 48) Findings include: Resident 48's clinical record was reviewed on 2/21/25 at 9:42 a.m. Diagnosis included end stage renal disease, dependence on renal dialysis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, essential hypertension, hypothyroidism, and muscle weakness. Current physician orders included complete dialysis assessment under the assessment tab one time a day every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. [NAME] dialysis communication binder with current vitals were to accompany resident to every dialysis appointment. Bed bath only due to dialysis port. Review of the clinical record indicated no dialysis assessment was completed on January 8, January 17, February 12, and February 14, 2025. Resident 45's dialysis binder indicated dialysis had been completed on these dates. During an interview, on 2/25/25 at 10:28 a.m., LPN 6 indicated once the resident returns from dialysis, the nurse would complete the post-dialysis assessment. That assessment was located…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-26 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
    Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure shift to shift narcotic count and reconciliation was completed for 2 of 3 medication carts reviewed for medication reconciliation. (100 Hall) Findings include: 1. During a medication storage observation of the 100A new medication cart, on 2/21/25 at 10:49 a.m., accompanied by RN 4, the Narcotic Sheet Log/ Tracking Form was reviewed and the following dates lacked shift to shift count and reconciliation signatures of controlled medications: January 2025- lacked a narcotic card, liquid, and/or bottle count: 1/12 on evening shift 1/13 on day shift and evening shift 1/17 on evening shift and night shift 1/18 on night shift 1/19 on day shift 1/20 on day shift, evening shift and night shift 1/21 on day shift and night shift 1/22 on day shift and night shift 1/23 on day shift 1/25 on day shift 1/27 on evening shift 1/31 on evening and night shift February 2025- lacked a narcotic card, liquid, and/or bottle count: 2/1 on day shift and evening shift 2/3 on day shift and night shift 2/5 on night shift 2/6 on day shift, evening…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    A. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to utilize infection prevention and control strategies during wound care for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident 76). B. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure transmission-based precautions were followed for 2 of 12 residents placed on transmission-based precautions (Resident 44 and Resident 45). Findings include: A. Resident 76's clinical record was reviewed on 2/24/25 at 10:05 a.m. Diagnoses included need for assistance with personal care, gastrostomy status, and encounter for surgical aftercare following surgery on the digestive system. Current physician's orders included the following: apply hydrocolloid (for wound healing) dressing to right and left buttock every day shift every Wednesday for protection related to wound and apply after shower (2/19/2025), Monitor hydrocolloid dressing to bilateral buttocks and replace if dressing is soiled or no longer intact every shift (2/12/25), and enhanced barrier precautions - wear gown/gloves to enter…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-11 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent the development of a pressure ulcer for a dependent resident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Resident 28) Finding includes: Resident 28's clinical record review was completed on 3/6/24 at 3:03 p.m. Diagnoses included unspecified dementia, intervertebral disc degeneration of the lumbar region, type 2 diabetes mellitus, generalized muscle weakness, unsteadiness on feet, other reduced mobility, and need for assistance with personal care. Current physician orders, dated 1/26/24, included the following: float heels while in bed every night shift for offloading, apply skin preparation (skin protectant) to bilateral heels every shift for protection, and apply pressure relief boot to right foot at all times except during transfers. A current physician order, dated 2/1/24, included a weekly foot inspection on evening shift. A Braden Scale (for predicting pressure sore risk), dated 12/11/23, indicated the following: the ability to respond meaningfully to pressure-related discomfort 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-11 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolated
    Ensure 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure gastrostomy tube placement was confirmed prior to medication administration according to facility policy for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for tube feedings. (Resident 1) Findings include: Resident 1's clinical record was reviewed on 3/6/24 at 10:32 a.m. Diagnoses on the resident's profile included, but were not limited to, post-immunization acute disseminated encephalitis (swelling in the brain and spinal cord that causes damage to the sheath covering the nerve fibers), and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), A physician's order, dated 5/13/2019, indicated check G-tube placement prior to bolus and medication administration and to maintain NPO (nothing by mouth), no exceptions. A physician's order, dated 7/11/21, indicated administer medications via g-tube, medications may be mixed together and mixed with 30 mL sterile water. Flush with 30 mL before and after medication administration, every shift. An annual MDS assessment, dated 2/7/24, indicated the resident had paraplegia (paralysis affecting the legs), a…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
BORNE-BAUMAN, CANDICEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/01/2022
FLUECKIGER, RUSSELLIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/01/2022
LEHMAN, SCOTTIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/01/2022
MACKLIN, LARRYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/01/2022
MCINTIRE, DAVIDIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/01/2022
SMITH, SCOTTIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/01/2022
SPRUNGER, KYLEIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/01/2022
WHEELER, DANEIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/01/2022
ADAMS COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITALOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/01/2022
FORVIS MAZARS, LLPOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
HEALTHCARE THERAPY SERVICES INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
MORRISON MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
PROACTIVE MEDICAL REVIEW AND CONSULTANTS LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
UNITED METHODIST MEMORIAL HOMEOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2022
BOXELL, JEFFERYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2025
BROTHERS, ALFREDIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 04/01/2025
CARMER, TONIIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 04/01/2025
CONNER, STEVENIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 04/01/2025
FENSTERMACHER, MARLENEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 04/01/2025
FULLBRIGHT, SHELLYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 04/01/2025
HOY, MARCELLINEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 04/01/2025
JENT, TERRENCEIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/03/2024
JONES, JEFFERYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 04/01/2025
KNEPP, GLENNIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 04/01/2025
PERERA ABEYSEKERA, SURESHAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2024
REAM, THOMASIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 04/01/2025
RICE, EDWINIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 04/01/2025
YU-MENDADOR, ROWENAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/01/2024
BLUE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2024
EVERGREEN SERVICES GROUP TOPCO LLCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
FIRST BANK OF BERNEOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2022
SKYLIGHT PARTNERS INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 50 rows in the source record cover these 32 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

10 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.

$14.8M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-28.9%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$2.4M
Related-party expense13% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 21%Medicare 1%Other / private 78%

This home reported $2.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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

$302per resident / day
operating cost
$9,177per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$234per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). 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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Indiana
$8,943/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$10,326/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,639/mo
Assisted living

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 155705. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-13, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next