1350 N Todd Dr, Scottsburg, IN 47170 · Scott County · (812) 752-5663
99 certified beds, about 74 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1993
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 155494 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on April 13, 2026, inspectors cited 5 health deficiencies (the Indiana average is 7.2, the national average 9.2).
Of 71 health citations since September 2023, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $45,372 in the last three years; the largest was $31,352, and the latest is dated March 18, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.32 hours per resident per day, against 3.69 across Indiana and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.69 of those hours.
50.8% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Indiana average 45.9%).
CMS links it to Infinity Healthcare Consulting, an affiliated group of 70 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 71 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician ordered parameters were followed for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for quality of care (Resident C).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food temperatures were maintained for 1 of 1 lunch observation.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's narcotic count sheet was available for review, failed to ensure administered narcotic pain medication was documented on the medication administration record, and failed to ensure insulin administration was documented timely for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for Resident Records. (Resident B and Resident C)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision was in place when a resident (Resident B) with impaired cognition and risk for elopement was left outside without staff supervision. This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 4/25/26 when Resident B, with cognitive impairment and elopement risk, propelled himself from the facility grounds to a heavily traveled road where the resident fell out of his wheelchair landing on the pavement in the emergency lane which was 0.2 miles from the facility. The resident was sent to the emergency room and treated for an abrasion to his right foot and right hand. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility management failed to timely report an incident to the Indiana Department of Health when a cognitively impaired resident (Resident B) with a high risk for elopement exited the facility grounds, without supervision, for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for reportable incidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure catheter care was in place for a resident (Resident C) with an indwelling catheter for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for urinary catheters.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's (Resident C) IV (intravenous) antibiotic therapy was reflected on the medication administration record, as ordered by the physician, for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for IV medication administration.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure behavior monitoring was in place for a resident (Resident B) with exit-seeking behaviors for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for behaviors.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored and prepared in a sanitary manner during 3 of 3 kitchen observations. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 63 or 63 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments accurately reflected the residents' medication status for 1 of 21 resident MDS reviewed for accuracy of assessments. (Resident 10).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure documentation on the Controlled Drug Receipt/Record/Disposition Form of administered narcotics for 2 of 46 residents observed for pharmacy services. (Residents 7 and 68)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure glucometers were cleaned per guidelines for infection control when obtaining blood sugar readings for 2 of 3 residents observed. (Residents 29 and 7)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview, the facility failed to ensure Saturday's mail was delivered to the residents upon arrival to the post box. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 63 of 63 residents currently residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure facial hair covering were in place for staff while working for 1 of 2 kitchen observations.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from resident to resident abuse for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure blood pressure medication was not administered to a resident (Resident K) outside of prescribed parameter blood pressure for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the hall meal service food was held at an appropriate temperature for 2 of 2 observations; failed to ensure the food was not overcooked for 1 of 2 meal service observations; and failed to ensure residents received adequate portions for 7 of 10 residents reviewed for dietary services. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 73 of 78 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a variety of snacks and snacks with nutritional value were available for the residents for 4 of 7 residents reviewed for dietary services. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 73 of 78 residents residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident (Resident E) was informed of a decrease in pain medication; failed to ensure a resident's (Resident M) representative was notified of the discontinuation of therapy services; and failed to ensure a resident's (Resident E) follow-up appointment for suture removal status post amputation was set-up for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for resident rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure complete and accurate information was provided to the abuse coordinator for an allegation of resident-to-resident abuse; failed to ensure an allegation of resident-to-resident abuse was reported to the abuse coordinator; and failed to ensure an allegation of verbal abuse was reported, in a timely manner, for 3 of 4 residents reviewed for abuse. (Resident B, Resident C and Resident D)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure monitoring was in place for a resident (Residents E, G and K) on anticoagulant therapy and monitoring was in place for a resident (Resident E and Resident F) on insulin 4 of 4 residents reviewed for pharmacy procedures.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the walls in the closet in a resident's (Resident B) room were clean and free of debris and failed to ensure the closet door was safely intact for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's (Resident B) medication administration record reflected the administration of narcotic medication; and failed to ensure physician visits for residents' (Resident B, Resident D, Resident E and Resident F) were uploaded, in a timely manner for 4 of 5 residents reviewed for medical records.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's (Resident F) dignity was maintained for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for resident rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's (Resident B) blood pressure medication was not administered, as ordered by the physician when out of parameters, for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's room was adequately equipped with an individual call system device to allow the resident to call for assistance if needed for 1 of 3 residents call systems reviewed. (Resident C)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident was evolved in aspects of his care related to a room change, and the temporary removal of his cell phone, from his possession without his consent, for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for the right to make treatment decisions. (Resident B)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement, in a timely manner, a plan of care for a resident (Resident B) on the memory care unit for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident (Resident B) placed on the memory care unit had the appropriate diagnosis for placement for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for dementia care.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a clean and sanitary kitchen for 2 of 2 kitchen observations and failed to store foods appropriately related to snack refrigerators for 2 of 2 snack refrigerators reviewed. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 69 of 70 residents that received foods from the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from physical restraint for the purpose of convenience for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for restraints. (Resident B)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure snacks were provided and were available for residents for 6 of 6 residents reviewed for dietary services (Residents E, F, G, H, K and L). This deficient practice had the potential to affect 63 of 63 residents who consume food from the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow the physicians' orders related to medication hold parameters for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for Quality of Care. (Resident B and Resident D).
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was in place for the administration of an additional dose related to anxiety medication for 1 of 3 resident's reviewed for pharmacy services. (Resident E)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident (Resident E) received double portions, per the meal tickets, for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for dietary services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate assistive device related to a lip plate was in place, per the resident's plan of care, for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for assistive devices.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to schedule 8-hour consecutive RN coverage for 6 of 6 months reviewed. (July, August, September, October, November, and December 2024). This had the potential to affect all 60 residents currently residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure narcotic medication counts were properly documented at the time of administration and expired insulins were removed for 3 of 5 medication carts reviewed. ([NAME] Drive medication cart 1, [NAME] Avenue medication cart 1 and Memory Care medication cart 1).
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to adequately secure residents in the facility van when transporting 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents (Resident 66)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure dialysis site monitoring and assessments were completed for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for dialysis. (Resident 24)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to store and dispose of discontinued insulin pens appropriately for 1 of 5 medication carts reviewed for medication storage. (Eagle Court Hall Medication Cart)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure snacks were provided and available for residents for 8 of 10 residents reviewed for dietary services (Residents B, N, O, H, R, P, Q, and S). This deficient practice had the potential to affect 61 of 62 residents who consume food from the faciliy.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident (Resident B) was informed, in a timely manner, of the cancellation of an appointment for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for resident rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from verbal abuse by a staff member for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for abuse. (Resident D and Resident L)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement policies and procedures for ensuring the reporting of a reasonable suspicion of a crime in accordance with 1150B of the Act for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for reporting abuse allegations. (Resident D and Resident L)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement a plan of care for a resident (Resident B) after all the resident's teeth were extracted for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's (Resident B) diet was changed and implemented in a timely manner for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for dietary.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record reviewed, the facility failed to ensure a resident's (Resident H) therapeutic diet was followed for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for resident meals.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure dressing changes on residents' (Resident B and Resident D) peripherally inserted central catheter line were completed as ordered for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's (Resident E) routine Lorazepam (narcotic antianxiety medication) was administered, as ordered by the physician, for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pharmaceutical services.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was served at appropriate temperatures for 1 of 1 observations of food temperatures. ([NAME] Hall)
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure as resident's (Resident E) medication administration record accurately reflected the administration of as needed narcotic pain medication for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for medical records.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to act upon resident concerns of food temperatures, taste of food, no activities on the weekend, drinks not being passed at night, staff completed the menus instead of asking the residents for 5 of 13 months of Resident Council meetings (May, July, September, November 2023; and January 2024). This deficient practice had the potential to affect the 67 residents currently residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure individualized resident activities were conducted for residents with dementia related to aggressive behaviors, resident to resident altercation, accidents, and inappropriate sexual behaviors for 6 of 19 residents reviewed for dementia care. (Residents C, E, F, G, B, and H)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate psychosocial follow-up by social services, related to aggressive behaviors, resident to resident altercations, accidents, and inappropriate sexual behaviors for 4 of 19 residents reviewed for social services. (Residents 61, C, E, and F)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate staffing to maintain the kitchen. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all 67 residents currently residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff followed menus and recipes for meal services for 3 of 3 random observations of meal service. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 65 of the 67 residents currently residing at the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were offered a nourishing snack at night between dinner and breakfast for 6 of 21 residents related to snacks. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the 65 of the 67 residents currently residing in the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure cleanliness of the kitchen and appropriate food preparation related to the steam table, handwashing sink, storage containers, preparation counter, storage cabinet, food processor, and kitchen appliances for 3 of 3 random observations of the kitchen.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident preferences with meals were honored for 2 of 25 residents reviewed for choices. (Resident B and 275)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to revise a resident's care plan from being at-risk for skin issues to actual skin impairment when the resident developed a rash and wound to the right ankle and leg for 1 of 19 residents whose care plans were reviewed. (Resident 13)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate emergency supplies for tracheostomy care were at the bedside for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for tracheostomy care. (Resident 25)
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate behavioral health services were obtained for 1 of 12 residents reviewed for behavioral health services. (Resident 61)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision to prevent falls, wandering and inappropriate behaviors for 5 of 19 residents observed. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 19 residents residing on the dementia unit. (Residents G, B, C, E, and F)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to obtain routine dental services for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for dental services. (Resident 39)
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision was in place when a resident (Resident G) with impaired cognition and risk for elopement exited the front doors without staff supervision. This deficient practice resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 12/7/23. Resident G is a [AGE] year-old male with severely impaired cognition and risk for elopement that had resided on the dementia unit since 7/12/23. The resident was admitted to a psychiatric hospital on [DATE]. He readmitted to the facility on [DATE] at 11:30 a.m., off the dementia unit, as a trial for the safety of the other residents on the dementia unit. The resident exited the facility through the front doors on 12/7/23 between 5:20 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. when a visitor exited the facility. At 5:43 p.m. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interview, the facility failed to identify an unresolved quality deficiency which had been cited on a previous survey, and ensure actions were developed and implemented to attempt to correct the deficiency through the quality assessment and assurance (QAA) process, as evidenced by a repeated deficiency for elopements. This deficient practice had the potential to affect 10 of 10 residents residing in the facility who are at a risk for elopement.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a staff member did not post photos of a resident on their personal social media account for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for resident rights.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's (Resident C) fall intervention was in place, per the resident's plan of care, for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for quality of care.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility management failed to report incidents to the Indiana Department of Health when a resident (Resident F ) exited the facility grounds, without supervision, and when a staff member reported an allegation of abuse (Resident C) for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for reportable incidents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision was in place when a resident (Resident F), with impaired cognition, did not exit the facility grounds and ambulated down the highway six tenths of a mile, without supervision, for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents/supervision.
30 fire safety citations on file: 5 on April 13, 2026, 12 on February 21, 2025, 13 on February 2, 2024.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| March 18, 2026 | Fine | $14,020 |
| December 12, 2023 | Fine | $31,352 |
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) | 3.32 | 3.69 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.69 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.15 | 3.25 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 1.98 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.65 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 50.8% | 45.9% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 57.1% | 40.3% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 0 |
CMS expects 4.48 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 3.39 on weekdays and 3.15 on weekends, 7% 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 3.30 in April to June 2025 to 3.32 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 | 3.32 | 0.69 | 3.39 | 3.15 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 74 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.31 | 0.64 | 3.41 | 3.06 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 72 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.43 | 0.49 | 3.52 | 3.19 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 68 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.30 | 0.46 | 3.48 | 2.85 | 0.0% | 0 of 91 | 63 |
| 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 | 5.9 | 11.0 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.3 | 3.9 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.2 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 8.6 | 11.9 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.3 | 3.6 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 31.9 | 13.6 | 15.4 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Waters of Scottsburg, the's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (53.9% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
53.9% 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. 26 eligible stays.
11.6% 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. 40 eligible stays.
8.6% 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. 29 eligible stays.
42.9% 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. 21 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. 26 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. 26 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. 12 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: PUTNAM COUNTY HOSPITAL. CMS links this home to Infinity Healthcare Consulting, a group of 70 nursing homes averaging 2.1 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Putnam County Hospital | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 11/01/2020 |
| Bray, Arnold | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/01/2012 | |
| Fry, Janice | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/01/2012 | |
| Headley, Matthew | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/01/2012 | |
| Landry, Keith | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/01/2020 | |
| Lewis, Katrina | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 12/21/2022 | |
| Underwood, Wendell | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 05/20/2024 | |
| Weatherford, Dennis | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 09/18/2012 | |
| Wood, Mark | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 08/05/2024 | |
| Sillery, Debra | Corporate director | Individual | 01/03/2026 | |
| Waters of Scottsburg II | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 11/01/2020 | |
| Hewitt, Melinda | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 05/27/2021 | |
| Weatherford, Dennis | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 09/18/2012 | |
| Bray, Arnold | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2012 | |
| Fry, Janice | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2012 | |
| Headley, Matthew | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2012 | |
| Landry, Keith | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 09/01/2020 | |
| Lewis, Katrina | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 12/21/2022 | |
| Sillery, Debra | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 01/03/2026 | |
| Underwood, Wendell | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 05/20/2024 | |
| Wood, Mark | Trustee of the SNF | Individual | 08/05/2024 | |
| Hewitt, Melinda | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 05/27/2021 |
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.