1029 E 5th Street, Connersville, IN 47331 · Fayette County · (765) 825-0543
113 certified beds, about 82 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1993
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 155491 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 27, 2025, inspectors cited 4 health deficiencies (the Indiana average is 7.2, the national average 9.2).
Of 31 health citations since February 2024, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents.
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.72 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Indiana and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.64 of those hours.
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 31 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents remained free from sexual abuse from Resident C towards Resident B and Resident G, resulting in Resident B experiencing anxiety and fear for 3 of 6 residents reviewed for sexual abuse (Resident C, Resident B and Resident G).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation and ensure protection from further allegations of sexual abuse resulting in a second allegation of abuse where the resident experienced anxiety and fear for 3 of 6 residents reviewed for sexual abuse (Resident C, Resident B, and Resident G).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of sexual abuse to the Indiana Department of Health (IDOH) for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for sexual abuse (Resident C and Resident G).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement individualized interventions for a resident with dementia who exhibited behaviors of being sexually inappropriate towards female residents for 3 of 6 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident C, Resident B and Resident G).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a homelike environment for 3 of 3 rooms observed with peeling and missing paint on the walls. (Resident 10, Resident 12, and Resident 26)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure care plan meetings were held quarterly for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for care planning. (Resident 1)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received showers as preferred for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). (Resident 29)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food items were not stored in a medication storage fridge for 1 of 2 medication rooms observed.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate documentation of a lack of bowel movements, which contributed to not following physician's orders related to PRN (as needed) administration of medications to encourage stooling for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for monitoring of bowel movements. (Resident C)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain the entry door into the main kitchen resulting in rodents entering the (west) building for 1 of 2 kitchens observed. This had the potential to affect the 42 residents that resided in the west building.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a homelike environment for 5 of 7 residents reviewed for environment (Resident 18, Resident 1, Resident 75, Resident 38, and Resident 64).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to administer residents' medication as ordered; notify the physician of a weight gain, as ordered; clarify a resident's medication order; ensure a resident's compression stockings were in place, as ordered; and follow-up on a physician's order for gastrostomy tube removal for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis, 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medication, 1 of 1 resident reviewed for edema, and 1 of 1 resident reviewed for tube feeding. (Residents 14, 45, 52, and 64)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide fresh fluids and keep fluids within reach for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for hydration (Resident 54, Resident 18 and Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide in room self-initiated activities for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for activities (Resident 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's urinary catheter drainage bag and/or tubing remained free of contact with the floor for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for indwelling urinary catheters. (Resident 33)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to routinely assess a resident receiving pain medications and administer narcotic pain medication for a resident with chronic pain for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pain. (Resident 12)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to timely follow-up on scheduling a resident's appointment for a CT (computerized tomography-diagnostic imaging procedure that uses x-rays and computers to create detailed images of the inside of the body) scan for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for skin conditions. (Resident 52)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was seen for routine dental services for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for dental services. (Resident 1)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to document treatments were completed, or refused, and failed to document if enteral feeding were administered, or refused, for 1 of 23 residents reviewed for documentation (Resident C).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to provide colostomy care in a manner to promote dignity for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for colostomy care (Resident G).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop a plan of care for a resident who would refuse to wear a pulse oximeter for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care (Resident J).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an interdisciplinary team review of a post fall event that would include a root cause analysis and implementation of fall interventions for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident B)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide colostomy services with professional standards when reviewing 1 out of 3 residents for colostomy care (Resident G).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to have pulse oximeter (measures oxygenated hemoglobin in the blood and heart rate) in place as ordered by the physician for ventilator residents, failed to ensure Respiratory Therapist was knowledgeable where to locate respiratory supplies, failed to provide education to the resident on the importance of wearing the pulse oximeter and failed to notify the physician of the resident's refusal to wear the pulse oximeter for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care (Resident C and Resident J).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a care plan, for blood pressure medications, for a resident with hypertensive heart disease. This affected 1 of 28 residents reviewed for care plan development. (Resident 21)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident and their representative(s) are invited to care plan meetings for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for care plan meetings. (Resident 40)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observations, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a dependent resident had facial hair to their preferences for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for activities of daily living. (Resident 28)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to administer pain medication according to the physician's orders, for 1 of 3 medication administration pass opportunities. (Resident 41)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, observations, and record review, the facility failed to ensure fall interventions of nonskid strips were in place for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for falls. (Resident 15)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each medication in the medication cart was appropriately labeled, including directions for use, for 1 of 4 medication cart observations. (Resident 31)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Weekly Nursing Summary Assessment for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Weekly Nursing Summary Assessment accuracy. (Resident 16)
13 fire safety citations on file: 7 on August 27, 2025, 4 on July 29, 2024, 2 on February 12, 2024.
CMS lists no fines or payment denials against this home in the last three years. The national average is 0.9 fines per home.
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) | 3.72 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.64 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.01 | 3.25 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.25 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.82 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | not reported | 45.9% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 40.3% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS expects 4.62 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 4.00 on weekdays and 3.01 on weekends, 25% 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 3.29 in April to June 2025 to 3.72 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 | 3.72 | 0.64 | 4.00 | 3.01 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 82 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.63 | 0.48 | 3.87 | 3.02 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 79 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.29 | 0.45 | 3.52 | 2.71 | 5.2% | 1 of 91 | 80 |
| 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. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| 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 | 1.9 | 11.0 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 7.6 | 3.9 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.7 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.1 | 11.9 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.4 | 3.6 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.0 | 13.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 28.4 | 22.2 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.8 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Majestic Care of Connersville's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 23 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. 30 eligible stays.
7.8% 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. 27 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 15 residents counted.
5.0% 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. 20 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 20 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
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. 8 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: Legal Business Name Not Available.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership data not available |
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.