7935 Calumet Ave, Munster, IN 46321 · Lake County · (219) 836-8300
225 certified beds, about 168 residents a day · Government - County · Medicare and Medicaid since 1972
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 155131 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on January 28, 2026, inspectors cited 22 health deficiencies (the Indiana average is 7.2, the national average 9.2).
Of 57 health citations since November 2023, 5 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists no fines against this home in the last three years.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.43 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Indiana and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.41 of those hours.
CMS links it to Casa Consulting, an affiliated group of 7 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 57 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview the facility failed to implement measures to prevent resident-to-resident verbal and physical abuse to a cognitively impaired dependent resident (Resident C) by his roommate (Resident B), who had a history of behaviors and recent verbal abuse toward Resident C, resulting in a physical altercation where Resident B struck Resident C in the face causing observed bruising, a bloody nose and swelling to his left jaw and cheek as well as facial fractures for 2 of 8 residents reviewed for abuse. The immediate jeopardy began on 12/11/25 when a resident with a history of known physical and verbal behaviors was involved in a resident-to-resident verbal altercation with his roommate, which later escalated on a different day into a resident-to-resident physical altercation causing harm and a fractured facial bone. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility staff failed to report resident-to-resident verbal abuse from a resident with known behaviors (Resident B) towards his roommate (Resident C) to administration, which resulted in a lack of interventions to prevent later physical abuse for 2 of 8 residents reviewed for abuse. (Residents B and C) The immediate jeopardy began on 12/11/25 when a resident with a history of known physical and verbal behaviors was involved in a resident-to-resident verbal altercation with his roommate, which later escalated on a different day into a resident-to-resident physical altercation causing harm and a fractured jawbone. The Administrator, Director of Nursing, [NAME] President of Operations, and Nurse Consultant were notified of the immediate jeopardy at 5:20 p.m., on 1/27/26. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident assessed without limited range of motion upon therapy discharge received recommended restorative services resulting in the development of a contracture to the right hand for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for range of motion. (Resident M)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the mandatory submission of staffing information, based on payroll data, was electronically submitted to iQIES. This had the potential to affect the 164 residents who resided in the facility. The deficient practice was corrected on 12/18/25, prior to the start of the survey, and was therefore past noncompliance. The facility identified the concern and immediately reviewed all PBJ data for the affected submission period. All previous submissions were audited and all prior submissions had been submitted and received timely. Administrative staff responsible for PBJ submission were re-educated immediately on CMS PBJ requirements and submission timelines. A standardized PBJ submission process was implemented, including monthly internal deadlines ahead of CMS due dates. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were assessed to self-administer medications and had Physician's Orders for the medication for 5 of 5 residents reviewed for self-administration of medication. (Residents P, 161, 155, Q and X)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure activities of daily living (ADLs) were completed for dependent residents related to facial hair, long and dirty fingernails, bathing, greasy hair, incontinence care, providing assistance with meals and adaptive equipment for eating for 10 of 13 residents reviewed for ADLs. (Residents P, O, H, G, M, K, Q, R, L and N)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure skin tears were assessed and monitored and treatments were completed as ordered for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for non-pressure related skin conditions, interventions were in place for a resident with hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for hospitalization, and medications were held without parameters for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Residents D, Y, X, and V)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper medication storage related to medications at the bedside for residents who did not self-administer medications and loose pills observed in the medication carts for 4 of 5 units. (Residents P and 145, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Floors)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to keep the kitchen clean and in good repair related to food debris on shelves and refrigerator doors, lime build up on the outside of the dishwasher, lack of sanitation solution in the sanitizing buckets, and food not labeled and dated in the pantries located on the units for 1 of 1 kitchen and 5 of 5 units. (The Main Kitchen and the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Floors)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were in place and implemented related to wearing gloves in the hallway, not changing gloves after providing incontinence care and bathing, not wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) in enhanced barrier precaution rooms, and failing to disinfect multi-use equipment during random infection control observations. (Resident 128 and Second and Third Floor)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident's right to make choices were honored related to showers given per preference for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for choices. (Resident U)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure as needed (PRN) anti-anxiety medications were not prescribed longer than 14 days. The facility also failed to ensure interventions were attempted prior to administering PRN anti-anxiety medications for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Residents P and B)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was involved in and informed of new medications ordered by the physician for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for care planning decision. (Resident 17)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure professional standards of quality were maintained related to CNAs removing dressings to pressure ulcers for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Resident P)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure an ongoing activity program was implemented for cognitively impaired and dependent residents for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for activities. (Residents 2 and K)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure interventions were in place and the correct treatment was provided for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Residents T and U)Findings Include:1. On 1/27/26 at 10:15 a.m., Resident T's wound care was observed with the Wound Nurse. The resident was positioned on his left side in his bed. There was a small pressure ulcer, approximately 0.5 centimeter long on his sacrum. The nurse cleansed the area with normal saline and gauze, patted it dry, then applied a hydrocolloid dressing to cover the wound. The resident's record was reviewed on 1/22/26 at 9:40 a.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, fracture of the left humerus and cellulitis of the left lower extremity. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for a resident with swallowing precautions and failed to keep sharp objects out of a resident's room who resided on the memory care unit for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for accidents. (Residents M and 1)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure a resident received the correct diet as ordered for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for nutrition. (Resident 16)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the residents' oxygen was set at the correct flow rate for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for oxygen. (Residents M and X)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a scheduled pain medication was available and administered as ordered for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Resident F)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide routine dental services for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Dental Services. (Resident V)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain clinical records that were complete and accurately documented related to incorrect documentation of medications administered for 1 of 36 records reviewed. (Resident X)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure professional standards of quality were maintained related to CNAs removing dressings to pressure ulcers and QMAs signing out wound care treatments for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Residents B, C, and D)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure blood pressure medications were held based on parameters for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for blood pressure parameters. (Resident E) The facility also failed to ensure treatments to skin conditions non-pressure related were completed as ordered for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Residents D and C)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure pressure ulcers treatments were completed as ordered for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Residents B, D, and C)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure infection control guidelines were in place and implemented related to not performing hand hygiene before and after glove removal and not wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) while performing wound care for 3 of 3 residents observed for wound care. (Residents B, D, and C)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and assistance were provided to a dependent resident who required total assistance of staff for bed mobility for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident B) This deficient practice resulted in a fall and the resident sustained a left femur fracture.
Inspectors wroteA. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure mechanical lift straps were safe for use prior to a transfer of a dependent resident for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for falls. (Resident B) This deficient practice resulted in a strap breaking during a transfer, the resident falling from the lift, and the resident sustaining a left femur fracture. B. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure hot water temperatures were below 120 degrees Fahrenheit on 2 of 4 floors throughout the facility. (The 5th and 2nd floors)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to keep the kitchen clean and in good repair related to dirty convection ovens, transportation carts, food preparation tables, the steam table, and the reach in coolers, as well as stacking clean but wet plates and dome lids on top of each other, and improper glove usage while preparing ready to eat food for 1 of 1 kitchen. (The Main Kitchen) This had the potential to affect 154 of 155 residents who resided in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to invite and hold care planning conferences for residents and/or their family members. The facility also failed to update a care plan related to preferences of wearing a hospital gown for 6 of 33 residents whose care plans were reviewed. (Residents 1, 9, 129, 141, 72, and 31)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure dependent residents received ADL (Activities of Daily Living) care related to long and dirty fingernails and facial hair for 4 of 11 residents reviewed for ADL's. (Residents 1, 6, 129, and 116)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to correctly prepare a pureed (blended smooth) diet designed to meet the needs of the residents. This had the potential to affect 10 of 10 residents who received a pureed diet.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to keep the residents' environment clean and in good repair related to dirty floors, toilets, walls, tube feeding poles, ceiling vents, overflowing garbage cans, and debris in light fixtures. The facility also failed to keep the kitchen clean related to food splattered on walls, dirty floors, and dirty piping under the dish machine for 4 of 4 floors and 1 of 1 kitchens. (The 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th floors, and the main kitchen)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident's dignity was maintained related to being exposed from the doorway and wearing a hospital gown while in bed during the day for 3 of 6 residents reviewed for dignity. (Residents 91, 120, and 92)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed and in place for anti-anxiety medications for 1 of 33 resident care plans reviewed. (Resident 139)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure areas of bruising and scabbing were assessed and monitored, and treatments were in place for non-pressure skin injuries for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for skin conditions non-pressure related. (Residents 56, 79, and 6)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure preventative measures were in place to prevent pressure ulcers related to the development of a new pressure area behind a resident's ear for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Resident 129)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure enteral tube feedings were infusing at the correct time through a peg tube (a tube inserted directly into the stomach for nutrition) for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for tube feeding. (Resident 113)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was at the correct flow rate for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for oxygen. (Resident 120)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure clinical records were complete and accurately documented related to medication orders for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications and 1 of 1 resident reviewed for tube feeding. (Residents 139 and 113)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident received the necessary treatment and services to promote healing for pressure ulcers, related to ensuring wound care orders were updated and implemented for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Resident D)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure gastrostomy tube (peg tube, a tube inserted through the abdomen that allows nutrition to be delivered directly to the stomach) dietary recommendations were followed for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for peg tubes. (Resident H)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to properly prevent and /or contain COVID-19, related to lack of assessment and monitoring of COVID-19 positive residents, for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for infection control (Residents B, D and E).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to serve food under sanitary conditions related to beverages being uncovered while being transported down the hallway for 1 of 1 meal observations. The facility also failed to store and prepare food under sanitary conditions related to dried spillage on the floor, walls, and door, and a build up of grease and grime on the food preparation equipment for 1 of 1 kitchens. (The Fourth Floor and the Main Kitchen)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure dependent residents received assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's) related to nail care and shaving for 4 of 13 residents reviewed for ADL's. (Residents E, G, F, and B)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure areas of bruising and scabbing were assessed and monitored and lotion was applied to dry scaly feet for 8 of 9 residents reviewed for skin conditions non-pressure related. The facility also failed to ensure residents were monitored for constipation for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for constipation. (Residents N, E, K, C, G, M, J, and H)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment was clean and in good repair related to dirty floors, marred walls, loose baseboards, lime build up, missing tiles, and personal care items not contained for 4 of 5 floors throughout the facility. (The Second, Third, and Fourth floors)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents had Physician's Orders for medications and an assessment to self-administer their own medications for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for self-administration of medication. (Resident 146)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to initiate Care Plans related to pressure ulcers and medication use for 2 of 33 residents whose Care Plans were reviewed. (Residents N and 12)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an Optometrist's recommendation for eye drops was completed in a timely manner for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for communication and sensory. (Resident 146)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure pressure ulcers were covered securely with a bandage as ordered by the Physician and treatment orders were obtained timely for new pressure sores for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Residents G and J)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure dependent residents received foot care and had routine visits with a podiatrist related to long and thick toenails for 1 of 11 residents reviewed for ADL's. (Resident G)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a suprapubic foley (urinary) catheter bag not on the floor and catheter care was completed as ordered by the Physician for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for catheters. (Resident 12)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was at the correct flow rate for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for oxygen. (Resident M)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a dialysis resident received the correct nutritional supplement for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for dialysis. (Resident 146)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to manage medications appropriately related holding blood pressure medications on dialysis days and checking blood pressure and pulse prior to the administration of blood pressure medications with Physician ordered parameters for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident 146)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure there was an indication for the use of a psychotropic medication for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident 23)
27 fire safety citations on file: 18 on January 28, 2026, 3 on October 22, 2024, 6 on November 20, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 22, 2024 | Payment Denial | 27 days from November 16, 2024 |
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) | 3.43 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.41 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.82 | 3.25 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.07 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.95 | ||
| 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 4.13 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 3.69 on weekdays and 2.82 on weekends, 24% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 1.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.58 in April to June 2025 to 3.43 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 | 3.43 | 0.41 | 3.69 | 2.82 | 1.0% | 0 of 90 | 168 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.65 | 0.42 | 3.89 | 3.03 | 0.9% | 0 of 92 | 157 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.58 | 0.39 | 3.81 | 2.99 | 2.1% | 0 of 91 | 153 |
| 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 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.3 | 3.9 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.9 | 11.9 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.7 | 3.6 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 19.5 | 13.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 21.8 | 22.2 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 6.8 | 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 | 0.7 | 1.4 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Munster Med-Inn's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (43.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
43.5% 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. 142 eligible stays.
10.0% 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. 154 eligible stays.
10.6% this home
Worse than 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. 121 eligible stays.
43.3% 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. 90 residents counted.
1.4% 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. 138 residents counted.
6.3% 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. 138 residents counted.
94.4% 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. 36 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: MAJOR HOSPITAL. CMS links this home to Casa Consulting, a group of 7 nursing homes averaging 1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seflers, Lee | Contracted managing employee | Individual | 01/01/2014 | |
| Horner, John | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2014 | |
| Seflers, Lee | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/01/2014 |
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.