705 E Main St., Centerville, IN 47330 · Wayne County · (765) 855-3424
137 certified beds, about 105 residents a day · For profit - Partnership · Medicare and Medicaid since 1993
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 155490 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 13, 2026, inspectors cited 4 health deficiencies (the Indiana average is 7.2, the national average 9.2).
Of 41 health citations since February 2024, 1 was rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $42,078 in the last three years; the largest was $42,078, and the latest is dated April 19, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.29 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Indiana and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.93 of those hours.
33.1% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Indiana average 45.9%).
CMS links it to Witham Memorial Hospital, an affiliated group of 5 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 41 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents maintained dignity by assisting residents with toileting needs in a timely manner, resulting in incontinence for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for resident rights. (Resident 14) Findings Include: The clinical record for Resident 14 was reviewed on 5/7/26 at 12:05 p.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to: morbid obesity (body mass index of 40 or higher), essential tremors (progressive neurological disorder that caused involuntary rhythmic shaking), mononeuropathy of bilateral upper limbs (damage to or compression of individual peripheral nerves in both arms or hands), and chronic pain syndrome. The care plan, dated 10/3/25 and revised 12/19/25, indicated Resident 14 had occasional episodes of bladder incontinence. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to honor a resident's bathing time preference for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for choices. (Resident 14)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to incorporate the recommendations from a resident's PASRR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) Level II determination and PASRR evaluation report for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for PASRR. (Resident 14)
Inspectors wroteThe facility failed to accurately and complete document eternal feeding and flush documentations for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for documentation accuracy. (Resident 98) The clinical record for Resident 98 was reviewed on 5/11/2026 at 11:09 a.m. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (progressive neurological disorder) and ventilator dependence. An annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 2/14/2026, indicated Resident 98 was cognitively impaired, had verbal outbursts that affected others, did not have weight loss, and was dependent on tube feeding. The assessment indicated Resident 98 had impaired mobility in all four extremities, was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living, and did not take nutrition by mouth. A care plan, dated 6/5/2024 and revised on 2/25/2026, indicated Resident 98 had specialized needs. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to include the resident's family in a physician follow-up visit with the neurosurgeon's office, at their request, after the resident's back surgery for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for physician appointments. (Resident B)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a homelike environment by not providing television (TV) remotes for newly admitted residents to watch TV per their preference for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for accommodation of needs. (Resident B and Resident D)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure follow up was conducted on care concerns for a resident and the resident's family who had expressed multiple care concerns via email and follow the facility's policy pertaining to grievances for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for quality of care. (Resident B)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's equipment of an enabler bar was functioning properly, failed to complete a thorough assessment after the resident's fall, and failed to implement fall interventions for a resident at high risk for falls for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for falls. (Resident B)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement an inventory sheet with resident belongings for newly admitted residents for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for missing items. (Resident B, Resident D and Resident C)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of verbal abuse was reported to the Indiana Department of Health within two (2) hours of its receipt for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse. (Resident D)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was referred for home health nursing services upon discharge for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for discharge. (Resident B)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement fall interventions, as care planned; transfer a resident utilizing a gait belt, as required; ensure position change alarm use was monitored for efficacy on an on-going basis; and ensure position change alarm use was aimed at assisting staff to assess for patterns and routines of residents for 4 of 5 residents reviewed for accidents. (Residents 23, 31, 41, and 71)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide privacy during care for 2 of 2 random observations (Resident 50 and Resident 36).
Inspectors wrote2. The clinical record for Resident 71 was reviewed on 4/24/25 at 11:55 a.m. Her diagnoses included, but were not limited to, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes mellitus, and stage four pressure ulcer of sacral region. The 1/14/25 Annual MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment indicated she was cognitively intact. She was totally dependent for toileting hygiene, bathing, lower body dressing, and putting on/taking off footwear. She required substantial/maximal assistance with eating, oral hygiene, upper body dressing, and personal hygiene. An observation and interview were conducted with Resident 71 in her room on 4/24/25 at 11:59 a.m. She was lying in bed with the covers over her. Her call light was clipped to her outer cover but was wedged between her left side enabler bar and mattress. Resident 71 attempted to reach for her call light but was unable to reach it. She indicated, I can't reach it. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain comfortable sound levels for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident 71) The clinical record for Resident 71 was reviewed on 4/24/25 at 11:55 a.m. Her diagnoses included, but were not limited to, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes mellitus, and stage four pressure ulcer of sacral region. She was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The 1/14/25 Annual MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment indicated she was cognitively intact. She was totally dependent for toileting hygiene, bathing, lower body dressing, and putting on/taking off footwear. She required substantial/maximal assistance with eating, oral hygiene, upper body dressing, and personal hygiene. The physician's orders indicated to check the function and placement of her bed and chair alarm every shift, effective 9/11/23. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide nail care and oral care for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). (Resident 9, Resident 66 and Resident 23)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to timely provide optometry services and timely address a resident's missing glasses for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for vision services. (Residents 38 and 91)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pressure wound interventions for a resident at high risk of developing pressure areas for 1 or 2 residents reviewed for pressure wounds. (Resident 67)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement and provide interventions for a resident with bilateral hand contractures for 1 of 2 residents revived for range of motion (ROM). (Resident 98)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers received the care and services required to treat the identified wound and documented the status of the wound routinely. (Resident B)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation of the root cause of a fall and failed to implement a fall intervention for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident B).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to have complete and accurate documentation of a resident's fall for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident B).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication administration was conducted in a safe manner and did not include leaving medication at a resident's bedside unattended for 1 of 25 residents rooms observed for unattended medications. (Resident G)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents remained free from physical abuse for 2 of 13 residents reviewed for abuse. (Resident K and Resident M)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to thoroughly report an allegation of sexual abuse and report resident to resident physical altercations to the Indiana Department of Health (IDOH) for 4 of 13 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident N, Resident P, Resident K and Resident M).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete initial assessments after a fall and follow-up assessments after residents had a fall with injury for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident D and Resident C)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to monitor and supervise a resident with dementia resulting in the potential for resident-to-resident interaction and failed to monitor and supervise residents on the memory care unit, assess residents, conduct follow-up, and notify family and the physician of inappropriate sexual contact between two residents for 4 of 13 residents reviewed for abuse. (Resident N, Resident P, Resident K and Resident L)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect the residents ' right to be free from sexual abuse for 3 of 3 male residents by a staff member while providing incontinence care. The staff member was on his first night of orientation without the presence of the regular staff member which he was paired with for his orientation for the shift. This action resulted in mental anguish for all 3 residents. (Residents B, C, D and CNA 3) This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy. The Immediate Jeopardy began on, 3-20-24 at approximately 2:00 a.m., when CNA 3 masturbated 1 of 3 residents. The Administrator and Director of Nursing were notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 4-17-24 at 11:55 a.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure their policies and procedures related to abuse prohibition were implemented for the prohibition of staff to resident abuse, for reporting of an allegation of abuse within two hours of the facility learning of the abuse allegation to the Indiana Department of Health's Long Term Care Division and for ensuring all persons with any facts or observations who might have pertinent information related to the alleged abuse were included in the investigation for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for staff to resident abuse. (Residents B, C, D and CNA 3)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of staff to resident sexual abuse to the Indiana Department of Health's Long Term Care Division and other state agencies within two hours of the facility being made aware of the abuse. (Residents B, C, D and CNA 3)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure beard restraints were utilized while working with food. This had the potential to affect 89 out of 94 residents who receive food from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record reviewed, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments were completed timely, or at least every 92 days, for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for MDS timeliness. (Resident 36, 73, and 79)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and observation, the facility failed to accurately code dental status for Resident 82, failed to accurately code Resident 79's urinary status, and failed to accurately code falls for Resident 93. This affected 3 of 34 residents reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to update Resident 12's care plan after refusal to use a lap buddy, failed to update a care plan after Resident 2 had bruising, and failed to update Resident 93's care plan with fall interventions. This affected 3 of 34 residents reviewed for care plan revisions.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a dependent resident with nail care, and failed to ensure facial hair was to a resident's preference. This affected 2 of 7 residents reviewed for activities of daily living care. (Residents 82 and 93)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide in room activities for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for activities (Resident 59).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to date a gastrostomy tube (G-Tube) dressing and failed to date the piston irrigation syringe for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for G-Tube (Resident 49).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure wound treatments were signed off as administered, conduct weekly would assessments on a pressure ulcer, and ensure there was not multiple treatments for the same pressure ulcer for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Resident B)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide Passive Range Of Motion (PROM) exercises for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for Range Of Motion (ROM) (Resident 49).
Inspectors wroteBased observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure fall interventions were implemented and failed to transfer a resident in a safe manner for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident 87 and Resident 72).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to date oxygen tubing and storage bag, failed to store oxygen tubing in a sanitary manner when not in use and failed to have a physician order for oxygen therapy for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for respiratory therapy (Resident 72 and Resident 2).
33 fire safety citations on file: 15 on May 13, 2026, 4 on April 30, 2025, 14 on February 20, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 19, 2024 | Fine | $42,078 |
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) | 4.29 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.93 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.91 | 3.25 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.63 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.73 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 33.1% | 45.9% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 32.0% | 40.3% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.46 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 4.45 on weekdays and 3.91 on weekends, 12% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 3.6% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 4.27 in April to June 2025 to 4.29 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 | 4.29 | 0.93 | 4.45 | 3.91 | 3.6% | 0 of 90 | 105 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.16 | 0.92 | 4.28 | 3.86 | 3.5% | 0 of 92 | 109 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.18 | 0.85 | 4.34 | 3.77 | 4.3% | 0 of 92 | 111 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.27 | 0.90 | 4.40 | 3.95 | 4.5% | 0 of 91 | 105 |
| 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 | 10.5 | 11.0 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.5 | 3.9 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.9 | 11.9 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.8 | 3.6 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.1 | 13.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.3 | 22.2 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.5 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Ambassador Healthcare's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (53.7% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
53.7% this home
No different from 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. 93 eligible stays.
9.9% 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. 99 eligible stays.
9.1% 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. 80 eligible stays.
42.0% 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. 81 residents counted.
0.8% 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. 127 residents counted.
3.9% 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. 127 residents counted.
100.0% 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. 40 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: WITHAM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL. CMS links this home to Witham Memorial Hospital, a group of 5 nursing homes averaging 1.6 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Witham Memorial Hospital | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 07/01/2011 |
| Mantooth, Melissa | Contracted managing employee | Individual | 07/01/2019 | |
| Bardoczi, Stephen | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 09/02/2013 | |
| Bayston, Brett | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Brand, John | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2015 | |
| Castetter, Andrea | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2023 | |
| Hawkins, Claude | Corporate director | Individual | 09/01/2013 | |
| Hornbecker, Michael | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Braverman, Kelly | Corporate officer | Individual | 12/01/2021 | |
| Sellers, Daniel | Corporate officer | Individual | 06/21/2024 | |
| Ambassador Centerville Management, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 05/02/2022 | |
| Fuerst, Shimon | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/02/2022 | |
| Kofman, Menachem | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/02/2022 |
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.