353 Tyler St., Gary, IN 46402 · Lake County · (219) 886-7070
100 certified beds, about 76 residents a day · For profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1994
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 155530 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on September 22, 2025, inspectors cited 16 health deficiencies (the Indiana average is 7.2, the national average 9.2).
Of 54 health citations since June 2023, 1 was 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 4.01 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Indiana and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.69 of those hours.
61.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Indiana average 45.9%).
CMS links it to Sterling Healthcare, 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 54 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain comfortable and safe temperature levels for 1 of 4 Units (500 Unit), where 22 residents resided.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to assess a resident with a change of condition before transfer and did not accurately document vital signs for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for change of condition. (Resident C)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary kitchen related to a low temperature chemical dishwasher not sanitizing properly. This had the potential to affect all 70 residents who received meals prepared in the kitchen. (Main Kitchen)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure pureed food was prepared correctly. This had the potential to affect all 8 residents who received pureed food from the kitchen. (Main Kitchen)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment was clean and in good repair related to marred walls and doors, dirty and discolored floor tiles, missing baseboards, stained ceiling tiles, and missing hooks from privacy curtains for 2 of 4 units throughout the facility. (Units 4 and 5)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain a resident's dignity related to wearing a hospital gown during the day and leaving a resident exposed for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dignity. (Resident 64)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was fully informed of risks and benefits of a psychotropic medication prior to initiating the medication for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident 11)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was assessed to self-administer medications for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for self-administration of medication. (Resident 24)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified timely of residents not receiving medications as ordered for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Residents C and B)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure professional standards of quality were maintained related to CNAs stopping and starting tube feedings for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for tube feedings. (Resident 64)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to provide ongoing activities for dependent residents for 3 of 3 residents reviewed for activities. (Residents 14, 35 and 44)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure blood pressure medications were administered and/or held per parameters as ordered. The facility also failed to ensure medications were administered as ordered and laboratory tests were obtained for 3 of 7 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Residents F, E, and D)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents with limited range of motion received appropriate treatment and services to increase or prevent further decrease in range of motion for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for mobility. (Residents 44 and B)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure tube feedings were infusing at the correct times and/or the head of the bed was elevated while tube feeding was infusing for 3 of 5 residents reviewed for tube feeding. (Residents 14, 9 and 64)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was set at the correct flow rate for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care. (Residents 12 and 24)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Pharmacy recommendation was completed as ordered for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident D)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free of significant medication errors related to medications not administered as ordered for infections for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Residents C and B)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were in place and implemented related to not donning personal protective equipment (PPE) for residents in enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) for two random resident care observations. (Residents 9 and 64 )
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure dignity was maintained related to knocking before entering a resident's room for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for dignity. (Resident E)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure equipment was properly functioning and ensure fall precautions were in place to prevent injury from a fall for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident J)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' pain medications were administered as ordered and in a timely manner for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pain. (Resident B)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was served and prepared under sanitary conditions related to touching food with ungloved hands, dirty food preparation equipment and greasy pipes for 1 of 1 residents observed for dining and 1 of 1 kitchens observed. (Resident L and the main kitchen)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to administer medications according to physician's orders related to not following parameters for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Residents H and J), failed to ensure areas of bruising and rashes were assessed and monitored for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for non-pressure related skin conditions (Residents C and G), failed to ensure new onset edema (swelling) was assessed and monitored for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for edema (Resident K), and failed to provide transportation to physician's appointments for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for transportation to outside appointments (Residents D, E, and F).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's preferences were honored related to turning up the volume on the television set for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for activities. (Resident 43)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident's Responsible Party was notified of the onset of a new bruise and medication changes for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for notification of change. (Residents C and B)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Functional Maintenance Program (FMP) was in place for continued ambulation and range of motion after a resident was discharged from physical therapy for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for rehabilitation services. (Resident C)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a dependent resident received assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's) related to the removal of facial hair for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for ADL's. (Resident 282)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure meal consumption logs were completed for a resident with a history of significant weight loss for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for nutrition. (Resident 68)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was set at the correct flow rate and a resident was transported to the Pulmonologist's office for an appointment for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for respiratory care. (Resident C)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure nonpharmacological interventions were offered, documented, and the pain assessment lacked a pain scale when monitoring for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pain. (Resident 45)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident saw the dentist at least yearly for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for dental care. (Residents K and D)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment was clean and in good repair, related to dirt and debris in the corners and around the base board in resident rooms and bathrooms, unlabeled/uncovered personal care items stored in the bathroom, dried liquid feeding on pump poles and floors, stains on the floor, dirty and stained privacy curtains, cobwebs, trash on the floor, trash and equipment stored behind closets and in unused bathtubs, dirty unused bathtubs, dim bathroom lights, loose baseboard, missing bathroom tile, holes in the tile floor in the bathroom, and a full water pitcher liner used for urine elimination for 14 of 15 rooms and /or bathrooms observed randomly on 4 of 4 halls. (Rooms 214, 213, 206, 204, 205, 311, 310, 308, 306, 408, 410, 402, 404, and 510.)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, and interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program related to dead bugs/water bugs and mice droppings in the resident rooms and bathrooms for 4 of 15 rooms randomly observed. (Rooms 310, 408, 402, and 213)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the right of a resident/Guardian to direct his or her own medical treatment, related to medication given after the legal Guardian expressed she did not want the treatment to continue, for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for resident rights. (Resident B)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident with pain received a routine pain medication as ordered by the Physician, related to not re-ordering the pain medication from the Pharmacy in a timely manner for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pain medications. (Resident B)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from unnecessary medications, related to medications administered when the blood pressure was out of prescribed parameters and multiple pain patches applied to a resident, for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Residents B and F)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the posted Nurse Staffing Information was up-to-date and current, related to Nurse Staffing Information not posted daily and a lack of of actual hours worked documented on the postings. This had the potential to affect all of the residents who resided in the facility in February, March, and April, 2024.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the resident and/or the resident's Responsible Party in writing of an intrafacility transfer, as well as the lack of notification of a new roommate, for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for infection control. (Residents B and H)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure meal consumption logs were completed for a resident with a history of a significant weight loss, for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for a significant change in condition. (Resident C)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident who received a left foot/toe injury had thorough and accurate assessments of the area and failed to treat the area as ordered by the Physician, which resulted in the resident being admitted into the hospital with diagnoses of left great toe infection, cellulitis of the left foot, and a MRI of the foot that indicated a result of suspicious for osteomyelitis of the left great toe for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for injuries. (Resident C)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from misappropriation of resident property, related to missing narcotics/controlled medication, for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for misappropriation of property. (Resident E) The deficient practice was corrected by 8/18/23, prior to the start of the survey, and was therefore past noncompliance. The facility thoroughly investigated the missing narcotic medication, as well as notified the police. A report was initiated by the police department. LPN 4 is no longer employed by the facility. Nurses and QMA's were educated on the policy for receiving controlled substances and shift to shift counting. Staff with access to the missing narcotics were interviewed. Audits were completed on all medications carts and for residents who had narcotics in the past 30 days. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure recipes were followed for a mechanical soft diet. This had the potential to affect the 9 residents who received a mechanical soft diet from the kitchen. (The Main Kitchen)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to serve and prepare food under sanitary conditions related to dirty food equipment, cooking items stored incorrectly, and improper hand hygiene during food preparation for 1 of 1 kitchens observed. This had the potential to affect the 79 residents who received food from the kitchen. (The Main Kitchen)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment as well as the kitchen area was clean and in good repair related to dirty pipes and debris along the floor/baseboards, dirty ceiling vents, floor tiles dirty and broken, marred walls, doors, and closets, gouges in walls, dirty ceiling tiles, missing transition pieces and trim, chipped caulk, and chipped paint in 1 of 1 kitchen areas and on 2 of 4 units. (The Main Kitchen, 200, and 400 Units)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure each resident's dignity was maintained related to a resident lying exposed in her room with no privacy curtains or doors closed for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for dignity. (Resident 70)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents had an assessment to self-administer their own medications for 1 random resident reviewed for self-administration of medication. (Resident 75)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure dependent residents received assistance with ADL's (activities of daily living) related to getting out of bed for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for ADL's. (Resident 48)
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 3 of 4 residents reviewed for activities. (Residents 48, 21, and 70)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure floor mats were in place for a resident who was a fall risk for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident 48)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a dialysis access site was assessed for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for dialysis. (Resident 49)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure signs and symptoms of anxiety were monitored, anti-anxiety medications were available, and interventions were implemented based on an individualized interdisciplinary approach to care with resident involvement for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for mood/ behavior. (Resident 81)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were labeled properly for 1 of 2 medication carts observed. (Cart 1 on the 500 Unit)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed as written and resident preferences were honored for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for food. (Resident 75)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure infection control guidelines were in place and implemented, including those to prevent and/or contain COVID-19, related to not completing respiratory assessments and not testing a symptomatic resident timely for COVID-19 for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for COVID-19. (Residents 39 and 12)
33 fire safety citations on file: 18 on September 22, 2025, 7 on July 24, 2024, 8 on June 9, 2023.
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) | 4.01 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.69 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.53 | 3.25 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.32 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.00 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 61.8% | 45.9% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 42.9% | 40.3% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 4.06 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 4.21 on weekdays and 3.53 on weekends, 16% 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 4.42 in April to June 2025 to 4.01 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 | 4.01 | 0.69 | 4.21 | 3.53 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 76 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 4.04 | 0.72 | 4.25 | 3.48 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 78 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 4.10 | 0.63 | 4.38 | 3.38 | 0.0% | 1 of 92 | 77 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 4.42 | 0.55 | 4.68 | 3.75 | 0.5% | 0 of 91 | 84 |
| 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 | 12.2 | 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 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 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 | 12.7 | 11.9 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.5 | 3.6 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.9 | 13.6 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 27.7 | 22.2 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 19.6 | 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 | 2.8 | 1.4 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for South Shore Health & Rehabilitation Center'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. 15 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.
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. 21 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.
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. 24 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. 18 residents counted.
0.0% 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. 41 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. 41 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. 1 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: PULASKI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL. CMS links this home to Sterling Healthcare, a group of 5 nursing homes averaging 3.2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ibekie, Oranu | Contracted managing employee | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Birn, Phillip | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Sanders, Caitlin | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Bennett, Adam | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Hutton, Charles | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Kauffman, Clinton | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Leman, Valerie | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| McKay, Michael | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Smith, Jennifer | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| White, Taylor | Corporate director | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Malott, Gregg | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2024 | |
| Maybach Partners, LLC | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/2024 | |
| Pulaski Memorial Hospital | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/2024 |
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.