10312 Allisonville Rd, Fishers, IN 46038 · Hamilton County · (317) 841-8777
161 certified beds, about 132 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 2011
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 155786 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 15, 2026, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the Indiana average is 7.2, the national average 9.2).
Of 32 health citations since January 2024, 3 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $11,190 in the last three years; the largest was $11,190, and the latest is dated March 25, 2025.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.56 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Indiana and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.56 of those hours.
45.0% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Indiana average 45.9%).
CMS links it to American Senior Communities, an affiliated group of 90 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 32 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the dignity of residents was maintained and respected for 3 of 4 resident reviewed for dignity and 16 of 134 residents reviewed in resident council. (Residents' B, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, V, Y, and Z).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure follow-up with resolutions to concerns brought up in resident council meetings were reported back to the resident council members. This had the potential to effect 16 of 134 residents that attended resident council meeting. (Residents' G, H, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, V, Y, and Z)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were able to file grievances anonymously for 16 of 134 residents reviewed during resident council. (Residents' G, H, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, V, Y, and Z)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure meal services were provided timely for 19 of 134 residents that eat food served from the kitchen. (Residents' G, H, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, V, Y, Z, BB, CC and DD)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to timely document meal consumption for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for nutrition (Resident B).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to address a resident lying in another resident's bed, as care planned, for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for dementia care. (Resident 4)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication was available for administration for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalization (Resident E).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to timely complete a physician's ordered STAT (immediate) laboratory test as ordered, for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for laboratory services. (Resident 15)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure facility staff (Qualified Medication Aide 6 and Certified Nurse Aide 2) notified the nurse on duty of a resident experiencing a fall (Resident D) and timely notify the resident's physician of a fall with injury, resulting in Resident D experiencing moderately strong pain and a delay in the treatment of a left humerus fracture, for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for falls, and to timely inform a physician of a significant change in a lab value for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalization (Resident B). This deficient practice was corrected on 2/19/25, prior to the start of the survey, and was therefore past noncompliance. The facility implemented a systemic plan that included the following actions: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident (Resident D) who had fallen the night of 1/21/25, was assessed by a licensed nurse and the licensed nurse was made aware of the fall incident by the facility staff (Qualified Medication Aide 6 and Certified Nurse Aide 2), who had assisted the resident back to bed, and ensure the resident had continued monitoring afterwards. The resident experienced moderately strong pain, had skin impairments, and was later hospitalized and identified with a fractured humerus at the hospital for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for falls. This deficient practice was corrected on 2/12/25, prior to the start of the survey, and was therefore past noncompliance. The facility implemented a systemic plan that included the following actions: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's hair was shampooed at least weekly, properly positioned a resident to reduce the risk of skin shearing, and to provide timely incontinence care and not utilizing double briefing for 4 of 11 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care. (Resident D, Resident G, Resident L and Resident 20)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene was performed when gloves were changed when performing incontinent care for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for activities of daily living, failed to maintain infection control while providing catheter care for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for catheter care, failed to ensure staff performed hand hygiene during coffee service, and to ensure medication carts were cleaned after touched by residents for 3 of 3 residents randomly observed. (Resident E, Resident F, Resident G, Resident H and Resident L)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow a resident's choices for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for choices. (Resident 30)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately document urinary output as ordered for a resident with an indwelling catheter for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for catheters. (Resident E)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the availability of medications to administer as ordered for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for care planning and 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident 47 and Resident 182)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to administer a synthetic opioid pain patch in accordance with the physician order, the manufacturer's specifications, or accepted professional standards to prevent a significant medication error for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for medication regimen. (Resident C) This deficient practice resulted in the resident having two opioid pain patches applied simultaneously, the resident experienced a significant change in consciousness that required emergent administration of an opioid overdose medication, and hospitalization. This deficient practice was corrected on 12/31/24, prior to the start of the survey, and was therefore past noncompliance. The facility implemented a systemic plan that included the following actions: [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to timely notify a resident representative of a fall for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for falls. (Resident B)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure care planned fall interventions were implemented for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for falls. (Resident F)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to document a resident's behaviors, implement behavior interventions that were put in place to address the resident's behaviors, and evaluate the effectiveness of behavior interventions for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse. (Resident H)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the environment was free from strong urine odors for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for environment (Resident J).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an accurate system of records for controlled medications for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for hospice services. (Resident C)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure nail trimming and hand hygiene was provided for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for upper extremity devices. (Residents' C, D and F)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for Residents F and G, and the potential to affect all 37 residents that reside on the memory care unit (MCU).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: monitor and assess a resident's bruising, per policy, for 1 of 7 residents reviewed for dementia care (Resident 92); accurately monitor fluid consumptions for a resident that was ordered to be on a 1,500 milliliter (ml) fluid restriction for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications and monitor a resident's output every shift per the plan of care for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for hospitalization (Resident 35 and Resident 127); and administer insulin and to obtain daily weights as ordered by the physician for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications and 1 of 1 resident reviewed for skin condition (Resident P and 33).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate monitoring and supervision and implement behavior care plan interventions for 8 of 37 cognitively impaired residents on the memory care unit. (Residents 4, 29, 58, 63, 64, 89, 92, and 100)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to report resident to resident altercations that resulting in pain and bruising for 2 of 37 residents on the memory care unit. (Residents 89 and 92)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary assistance needed for showering at least twice weekly as preference by a resident for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for ADLs. (Resident Q)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent a stage III pressure ulcer from developing on a resident with a moderate risk for developing a pressure ulcer for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Resident R)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were in place for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident L and P)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide thickened liquids at bedside, as ordered by the physician, for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for hydration (Resident F)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure there were staff available to access medications in the emergency drug kit (EDK) regarding antianxiety medication for a resident experiencing anxiety for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for mood/behavior. (Resident E)
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to properly prevent and/or contain COVID-19 by not testing a resident with signs and/or symptoms of COVID- 19 timely for 1 of 1 residents reviewed during a random observation for respiratory care. (Resident Q).
29 fire safety citations on file: 17 on April 15, 2026, 4 on March 25, 2025, 8 on January 30, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 25, 2025 | Fine | $11,190 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Indiana | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.56 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.56 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.05 | 3.25 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.11 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.89 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 45.0% | 45.9% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 38.1% | 40.3% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 3.82 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.77 on weekdays and 3.05 on weekends, 19% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.44 in April to June 2025 to 3.56 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.56 | 0.56 | 3.77 | 3.05 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 132 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.48 | 0.66 | 3.70 | 2.92 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 134 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.43 | 0.64 | 3.64 | 2.90 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 123 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.44 | 0.58 | 3.62 | 2.99 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 121 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Indiana, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.63 | 0.62 | 3.80 | 3.19 | 3.4% | 0.4% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indiana, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $18.43 | $17.80 to $21.36 | 33,640 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $31.60 | $29.35 to $35.30 | 14,480 |
| Registered nurses | $40.14 | $37.86 to $48.28 | 68,980 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Indiana | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.3 | 11.0 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.8 | 3.9 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.1 | 11.9 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.8 | 3.6 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 13.9 | 13.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 20.0 | 22.2 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 8.7 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.7 | 1.4 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Allisonville Meadows's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it better than the national rate (58.2% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
58.2% this home
Better than the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Indiana: 111 better, 7 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 166 eligible stays.
9.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Indiana: 0 better, 17 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 171 eligible stays.
6.3% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Indiana: 0 better, 4 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 83 eligible stays.
41.8% this home
Median of homes: Indiana60.0% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 79 residents counted.
1.1% this home
Median of homes: Indiana0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 94 residents counted.
0.7% this home
Median of homes: Indiana1.4% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 94 residents counted.
96.6% this home
Median of homes: Indiana100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 59 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: THE HEALTH AND HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF MARION COUNTY. CMS links this home to American Senior Communities, a group of 90 nursing homes averaging 3.9 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drummer, Carl | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2017 | |
| Fehribach, Gregory | Corporate director | Individual | 12/14/2004 | |
| Hanify, Thomas | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2022 | |
| Lazard, Robert | Corporate director | Individual | 01/29/2021 | |
| Mantravadi, Geeta | Corporate director | Individual | 07/21/2021 | |
| Mukes-Gaither, Beverly | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2022 | |
| Payne, Monica | Corporate director | Individual | 08/09/2021 | |
| Babcock, Paul | Corporate officer | Individual | 09/30/2020 | |
| Caine, Virginia | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/10/1994 | |
| Harris, Lisa | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/22/2003 | |
| American Senior Communities LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 10/01/2011 | |
| Dice, Mark | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2023 | |
| Hoyek, George | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 11/15/2018 | |
| Sims, Justin | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/06/2024 | |
| Smart, Patrick | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 03/03/2025 | |
| Van Camp, Steven | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/01/2023 | |
| American Senior Communities LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2011 | |
| Dice, Mark | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2023 | |
| Hoyek, George | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/09/2026 | |
| Sims, Justin | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/23/2026 | |
| Van Camp, Steven | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 06/01/2023 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Indiana. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.