6370 Robin Run W, Indianapolis, IN 46268 · Marion County · (317) 293-5500
84 certified beds, about 57 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1993
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 155505 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on September 23, 2025, inspectors cited 15 health deficiencies (the Indiana average is 7.2, the national average 9.2).
Of 64 health citations since June 2023, 7 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $119,592 in the last three years; the largest was $119,592, and the latest is dated April 1, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.27 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Indiana and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.70 of those hours.
66.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Indiana average 45.9%).
CMS links it to Boncrest Resource Group, 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 64 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a full code and a change in condition was closely monitored and treated timely; and failed to ensure effective communication with hospice resulting in the resident having a delay in treatment and death for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for death (Resident B). The Immediate Jeopardy began [DATE], when a resident with a full code who had been alert and participating in her care, had an overall change of condition, the staff were unable to obtain labs, and the family had requested the resident be sent to the ER. The facility called Hospice and Hospice convinced the family to not send the resident to the ER. No Hospice assessment, admission, or contract had been obtained at that time. On [DATE] Hospice admitted the resident as a full code and ordered comfort medications. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to protect a resident's right to be free from physical abuse and mental abuse by a staff member when the staff member roughly provided resident care and left the resident exposed without clothes while a non-caregiver observed via a video phone call without the resident's knowledge for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident E). Using the reasonable person concept, it is likely the deficient practice would lead to psychosocial distress, anxiety, and/or fear. The deficient practice was corrected by 5/15/26 after the facility implemented a systemic plan and was therefore Past Noncompliance
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to implement timely interventions and treatments for residents who had pressure ulcers resulting in harm when those pressure ulcers worsened as a result of the lack of implementing interventions and treatments for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Residents Q, L, and D).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed to report an injury of unknown origin to the Administrator in a timely manner, which delayed the investigation for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. (Resident C)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were obtained for and treatments were provided for an enterocutaneous fistula (an abnormal passage between the bowel and the skin, allowing intestinal contents to leak onto the abdominal wall) while a resident awaited surgical intervention for the area for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for quality of care (Resident B).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and observations, the facility failed to implement interventions to treat pressure ulcers and failed prevent pressure to residents' bony prominences for 2 of 3 resident's reviewed (Resident H and G).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to prevent a fall with injury when they inappropriately transferred a resident (Resident H) resulting in actual harm of a hip and femur fracture, and when a resident's personal items were not within reach resulting in a fall with a brain bleed (Resident C) for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for falls resulting in a major injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the Ombudsman of a discharge and failed to send a bed hold notification with the resident or to the family representative for 2 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident F and H).
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate baseline care plans (a required, preliminary care plan developed for nursing home residents within 48 hours of admission to ensure safe, effective, and person-centered care until a comprehensive care plan is finalized) were in place for a newly admitted resident (Resident J) within the required timeframe for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for baseline care plan implementation.
Inspectors wroteBased on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a newly admitted resident had a code status ordered and displayed in their chart for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for code status concerns (Resident G).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to update a resident's care plan after an allegation and incidents occurred for 3 of 5 residents reviewed for care plans (Residents B, C, and F).
Inspectors wroteA. Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident specific care was initiated to ensure quality of care was provided to a newly admitted resident (Resident G) for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for quality of care. B. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow physician orders to monitor resident's weight daily for fluid overload and notify the physician of weight gain in 24 hours as ordered for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for quality of care (Resident D).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control practices were used when caring for a resident who was in Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for infection control concerns (Resident G).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and interview, the facility failed to maintain clean and sanitary conditions in pantry and pantry refrigerators in 2 of 2 food storage and food preparation areas (Healthcare and Memory Care). This deficient practice had the potential to affect 61 of 62 residents who received solid and liquid oral nutrition.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food in the main kitchen during meal prep were covered and protected from potential contamination, failed to ensure foods in the walk-in refrigerator were labeled/dated and covered from the potential for contamination, and failed to ensure the dish washing machine reached the minimum sanitation temperatures. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 53 of 53 residents served from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteA. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's right to make decisions regarding her care and treatments for 1 of 15 residents reviewed for resident rights (Resident K). B. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain residents' right to dignity when providing wounds treatments in common areas, using inappropriate clothing protectors at meal times, during activities, and when speaking with residents for 11 of 15 residents reviewed for resident rights (Residents E, F, G, H, J, L, M, P, 28, 48, and 55). Using the reasonable person concept this deficiency had the potential to cause residents discomfort and humiliation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure grievance resolutions were provided, or effectively addressed ongoing concerns related to call lights response times and staffing availability to meet the resident's needs and preferences for 1 of 15 residents reviewed for grievances (Residents H) and for 6 of 6 residents who participated in a resident council meeting.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who resided in the secured memory care unit received necessary care and services for activities of daily living (ADL) including eating, toileting, and grooming for 10 of 15 residents reviewed for ADLS (Residents E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N and P).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to meet the needs of residents in the secured memory care unit as evidence by unmet or untimely assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) care for 10 of 15 residents reviewed for ADLs (Residents E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N and P), failed to ensure the appropriate assistance was available for the transfer of a resident in a hoyer lift which tipped and caused the resident to receive a skin tear for 1 of 4 resident reviewed for accidents (Resident P), and failed to ensure enough staff to timely answer call lights and assist residents for 4 of 7 months of grievances reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications stored in medication carts were appropriately stored, labeled, and dated. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 9 of 57 residents receiving medication from the facility (Residents 24, 59, 9, 57, 4, 36, 7, 32, and 8).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate infection prevention measures were taken during wound treatments for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for wounds (Residents G and 55). Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an effective infection surveillance tracking and trending procedure was in place for 4 of 9 months of infection surveillance reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents had clear orders for code status to reflect the resident's/family's choices for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for code status (Residents B and K), and failed to adhere to a resident's physician order for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for code status (Resident B).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow up with a pharmacy recommendation for psychotropic medications for 1 of 5 resident reviewed for pharmacy recommendations (Resident 5).
Inspectors wroteBased on documentation and interview, the facility failed to adequately investigate an allegation of misappropriation for an unidentified resident for 1 of 1 abuse allegation investigation reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan (a care plan that is developed at the time of admission through 48 hours of admission) for 1 of 7 residents reviewed for baseline care plans (Resident 66).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement a care plan for residents' desired advanced directives for 2 of 7 residents reviewed for care plans (Residents 5 and 21) and failed to implement a care plan for a resident's behaviors for 1 of 7 residents reviewed for care plans (Resident 7) reviewed for care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to update care plans related to wounds for a resident (Resident 5) and new fall interventions for a resident (Resident 7) for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for care plan concerns.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent the potential for the development of pressure ulcers when a resident's socks were too tight and left abrasions around his calf, and failed to ensure a resident had a pressure reducing cushion added to her wheelchair as ordered by her physician for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for pressure (Residents K and F).
Inspectors wroteA. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent the potential for accidents when a resident was assisted with only one CNA and the Hoyer lift tipped over for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident L). B. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent the potential for accidents when a resident on the secured memory care unit was observed wandering and asking to go home, had access to the locked door codes, and the facility failed to maintain an Elopement Binder in case of an elopement for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident 39). C. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain a system for management of resident funds, and return personal funds within 30 days of discharge, for 8 of 11 residents reviewed for misappropriation of property (Residents F, G, H, J, K, L, M, and N).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who were dependent on staff for bathing and showering assistance received those services for 4 of 15 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) assistance (Residents C, P, Q, and R).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the identification, assessment, documentation, and notification of skin issues for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for wound care (Resident E).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, and interview, the facility failed to prevent the development of a unstageable (full-thickness skin and tissue loss wound where the depth of the injury cannot be determined because the wound bed is obscured by slough or eschar) sacral wound that resulted in wound debridement and the wound increased to a Stage 3 (Full thickness tissue loss with subcutaneous fat may be visible, but bone, tendon, or muscle is not exposed) pressure ulcer for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident C).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure respiratory treatments were provided with professional standards of practice for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for medication administration (Residents C and E).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to manage pain for a resident with a history of falls, who was experiencing pain related to a fall with a fracture of her left hip for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for falls (Resident B).
Inspectors wroteA. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a history of fall-related fractures was transferred with two staff persons in accordance with the plan of care, and failed to ensure post fall procedures were followed for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for falls (Resident D). This deficient practice resulted in a fall while in the shower room and the resident sustained fractures of two left ribs, the spine, and the sacrum. B. Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to ensure cleaning chemicals were stored in a manor to prevent residents from accessing them for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents, with the potential to effect 19 of 19 residents residing on the secured memory care unit (Resident K).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to initiate a Minimum Data Set (MDS) significant change assessment after a change in condition for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for hospice change in condition (Residents 14 and 49).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the food in the kitchens were dated according to policy for 1 of 1 observation and the refrigerator and freezer temperature logs were completed for 2 of 3 kitchen and pantry observations.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, and record review, the facility failed to appropriately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) with accurate information for 3 of 5 residents reviewed (Resident 11, 1, and 211).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement a fall care plan for a resident with a history of falls for 1 of 5 residents reviewed (Resident 60).
Inspectors wrote2. On 8/18/24 at 11:54 a.m., a record review was conducted for Resident 53. He had the following diagnoses which included but were not limited to cerebral infarction (CI) (stroke), anemia, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) and muscle weakness. Resident 53's April 2024 weight was 150.0 pounds. His weight on 8/16/24 was 133.4 pounds. He had a weight loss of 16.6 pounds over a 4-month period. This was a significant weight loss at 11.07%. Resident 53's record indicated he was unable to have oral nutrition related to dysphagia. He had an order, dated 7/25/24, for Osmolite 1.2 cal oral liquid give 75 ml (milliliter)/hr (hour) via g-tube (gastrostomy) every shift for continuous feeding, flush 30 ml every hour, turn off from 2:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. Resident 53 had a care plan, dated 5/29/24, that indicated he was nothing by mouth (NPO) due to dysphagia from CVA (stroke). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to reconcile medications upon discharge for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for medication disposition (Residents 60 and 58).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to label tuberculin serum appropriately for 1 of 1 medication room reviewed.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews, the facility failed to document resident's blood sugars and insulin administration on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for 2 of 5 residents reviewed (Resident 20 and 11).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff covered facial hair during food preparation, maintained clean and sanitary conditions in the kitchen, pantry, and pantry refrigerator, and food was stored at proper temperature for 3 of 3 food storage and food preparation areas observations. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 79 residents who received food from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to care for a resident in a manner that preserved the resident's dignity and rights for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for quality of care (Resident K).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure call lights were within reach for 3 of 3 dependent residents observed for call light placement (Residents M, P, and Q).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to address resident grievances regarding missing clothing and hearing aids (Residents C, J, and Q).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide personalized activities to a dependent resident incapable of self-initiated activities (Resident K) and failed to consistently provide activities to a resident with dementia (Resident J) 2 of 3 residents reviewed for quality of care (Residents K and J).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure fall follow up was completed to include neurological (neuro) checks, 72 hour follow up documentation, interventions were initiated, and care plans were updated, for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for falls (Residents C, and K).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to properly elevate the head of the bed for a resident receiving nutrients via a gastroscopy tube (g-tube) with a known history of aspiration pneumonia (when food or liquid is breathed into the airways or lungs instead of being swallowed), and put a label on infusing bags of tube feeding formula for 1 of 1 resident observed for tube feeding (Resident K).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and interviews, the facility failed to publicly post the name, address, and telephone number of the area Ombudsman (resident advocate who provided information on quality care and helped to resolve problems in the nursing home). This deficient practice affected 44 of 44 residents residing in the facility and/or the residents' representatives.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary treatments and services to promote the healing of non-pressure ulcers for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for skin impairment (Resident E). The deficient practice was corrected on 1/3/24, prior to the start of the survey, and was therefore past noncompliance.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were revised to update person-centered interventions for 7 of 15 residents reviewed for care plan revision and timing, (Residents 14, 3, 26, 46, 47, 59 and 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a soft touch call light (an assistive device used to summon staff for residents with limited mobility) was in reach for a resident for 1 of 15 residents reviewed for call light use (Resident 57).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were created and implemented for 1 of 15 residents reviewed for care plan implementation (Resident 59).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate nail care was completed for residents' who could not do nail care for themselves for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for nail care (Residents 59, 21, and 23).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident dressing changes were completed appropriately for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for dressing changes, a resident's skin assessments were completed and accurate for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for skin assessments, and failed to float a resident's heels according to a physician's order for 1 of 3 residents observed for skin assessments (Resident 23).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to identify the potential for accidents when a mobility aid was removed from a bed, leaving the open attachment bar exposed next to the mattress for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident 20).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor a resident, who experienced a change of condition due to weight loss, and failed to ensure interventions were implemented to prevent further weight loss and decline for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for weight loss (Resident 47).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received person-centered trauma informed care after she sustained severe burns to her extremities from an apartment fire. This deficient practice had the potential to effect 1 of 2 residents reviewed for Trauma informed care. accurate baseline care plan was put in place for a resident (Resident 173) to address immediate care concerns related to her skin integrity and medications. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 1 of 2 residents reviewed for new admission baseline care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to properly store medications that were over the counter medications brought in by family members for 2 of 13 residents reviewed for medication storage (Residents 21 and 51).
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a gradual dose reduction (GDR) was attempted and/or a clinically contraindication was documented for a resident, (Resident 3) for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff used appropriate hand hygiene while assisting residents with eating for 3 of 3 residents observed being assisted with dining (Resident 9, 21, and 24).
35 fire safety citations on file: 5 on September 23, 2025, 10 on August 23, 2024, 20 on June 12, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| April 1, 2026 | Fine | $119,592 |
| April 1, 2026 | Payment Denial | 46 days from May 8, 2026 |
| November 15, 2024 | Payment Denial | 2 days from December 20, 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) | 4.27 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.70 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.83 | 3.25 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.89 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.68 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 66.2% | 45.9% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 70.0% | 40.3% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.76 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 4.44 on weekdays and 3.83 on weekends, 14% 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 3.70 in April to June 2025 to 4.27 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 | 4.27 | 0.70 | 4.44 | 3.83 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 57 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.16 | 0.76 | 4.36 | 3.66 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 62 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.08 | 0.74 | 4.24 | 3.68 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 55 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.70 | 0.50 | 3.91 | 3.19 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 56 |
| 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 | 15.5 | 11.0 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.8 | 3.9 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 22.7 | 11.9 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.1 | 3.6 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 11.2 | 13.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.4 | 22.2 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 10.1 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Robin Run Health Center's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (58.5% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
58.5% 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. 93 eligible stays.
10.3% 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. 98 eligible stays.
7.7% 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. 52 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. 17 residents counted.
2.9% 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. 34 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. 34 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. 15 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: HANCOCK REGIONAL HOSPITAL. CMS links this home to Boncrest Resource Group, a group of 5 nursing homes averaging 2.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hancock Regional Hospital | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 04/01/2023 |
| Indianapolis Healthcare Investors LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Long, Steven | Corporate officer | Individual | 04/01/2023 | |
| Indianapolis Senior Care LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Oakdale Seniors Alliance LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Carroll, Paula | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/19/2025 | |
| Long, Steven | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 06/13/2022 | |
| Mustaklem, Marwan | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 07/11/2025 | |
| Bond, Maria | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 07/01/2021 | |
| Clark, Timothy | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2015 | |
| Daugherty, Joshua | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2020 | |
| Felker, Dean | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2015 | |
| Joyner, Sara | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 01/01/2022 | |
| Willard, Lacey | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 07/01/2022 | |
| Wilson, Roy | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 05/01/2015 | |
| Healthy Aging Enterprise LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 07/11/2025 | |
| Indianapolis Healthcare Investors LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Indianapolis Senior Care LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Oakdale Seniors Alliance LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 04/01/2023 | |
| Carroll, Paula | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/19/2025 | |
| Mustaklem, Marwan | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 07/11/2025 |
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.