Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around April 2027
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Brookside Village Inc during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A facility failed to ensure timely call light response and dignified treatment for 4 residents. One resident was observed waiting in the bathroom while an RN delayed responding, and call light logs for multiple residents showed repeated waits of 15 to 45 minutes. Residents and family members reported frustration, helplessness, and pain from prolonged waits, and records showed several residents needed assistance with toileting, transfers, and ADLs. The facility also had multiple grievances about slow call light response times.
MDS assessments inaccurately reflected resident meds for 3 residents. One resident was coded for an antiplatelet despite no order or MAR documentation, another was coded for an antibiotic despite no order or MAR documentation, and a third was coded for an anticoagulant even though the record showed aspirin 81 mg daily was administered and no anticoagulant order existed. The MDS Coordinator stated meds should not be listed if not given during the look-back period and acknowledged the assessments needed modification.
An LPN administered a resident’s scheduled IV Cefepime after the ordered time, despite the facility policy requiring medications to be given within one hour of the prescribed time. The resident, who was cognitively intact and receiving treatment for a surgical site infection, stated staff were often late starting her IV antibiotics, and the MAR showed the dose was charted late.
Failure to maintain sanitary incontinence care during resident hygiene. Two LPNs provided incontinence care to one resident and an LPN provided care to another resident while using the same gloves across dirty and clean tasks, touching multiple items in the room, and failing to perform hand hygiene or change gloves between tasks. One LPN also touched the inside of a clean incontinence pad with soiled gloves, and a saturated disposable pad was left on a roommate’s recliner after care.
Delayed Call Light Response and Lack of Dignified Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure residents were treated with dignity and respect by not responding to call lights in a timely manner for 4 of 4 residents reviewed. Surveyors observed a resident waiting for staff to answer a bathroom call light while an RN checked the call light screen, returned to the medication cart, prepared a medication, and did not immediately respond to the resident. The report also documented multiple call light logs showing repeated waits of more than 15 minutes, including several waits lasting 20, 30, 40, and 45 minutes. Resident H had diagnoses including dementia, was assessed as cognitively intact on the most recent MDS, and required partial to moderate staff assistance for toileting and showering with supervision for transfers. The resident’s bladder incontinence care plan called for incontinence care after each incontinent episode. Call light logs for this resident showed multiple prolonged waits, including a 45-minute bedroom call light, a 23-minute bedroom call light, a 33-minute bedroom call light, and other waits over 15 minutes. During the observation, the resident also requested more wipes after staff entered the room. Resident C reported waiting up to 30 minutes after using the bathroom for staff to answer the call light and said the delay made her frustrated and helpless. Her record showed she was cognitively intact, continent, and needed substantial to maximum assistance for toileting, bed mobility, and transfers. Her behavior care plan identified anxiety, perseverating, and frustration, with interventions focused on calm, trusting interactions and being available. Her call light logs showed numerous prolonged waits, including bathroom and bedroom call lights lasting 15 to 41 minutes. Resident G stated she had waited 20 minutes to get off the toilet and nearly got up herself because sitting too long hurt her hip. Her record showed a healing sacrum fracture, cognitive intactness, and partial to moderate assistance for toileting and transfers. Her behavior care plan identified anxiety, restlessness, and isolation. Her call light logs included waits of 17, 24, 26, 30, and 35 minutes, including bathroom call lights. Resident F and family members reported waits greater than 30 minutes for call light response. Resident F had diagnoses including stroke and depression, was cognitively intact, incontinent of bowel and bladder, and totally dependent for transfers, showers, and toileting. Her fall risk care plan required assistance with ADLs and cueing to use the call light, and her logs showed multiple waits of 19 to 44 minutes. The facility had six grievances in the prior three months specifically about call light response times being too long. Staff interviews indicated call lights were slower during busy periods, especially when medication passes, showers, and bedtime care were occurring. The Administrator stated the facility did not routinely audit call light logs unless there was a concern or complaint, and the DON stated that when reviewing complaints, most wait times were not concerning. The resident rights policy stated residents were to be treated with kindness, respect, and dignity.
MDS assessments inaccurately reflected resident medications
Penalty
Summary
Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments accurately reflected residents' medications for 3 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Resident 7, with diagnoses including stroke and atrial fibrillation, had a quarterly MDS dated 3/6/26 that indicated an antiplatelet medication was received during the 7-day look-back period, but the physician orders and February and March 2026 MAR lacked an order or administration for an antiplatelet medication. Resident F, with diagnoses including stroke and atrial fibrillation, had an admission MDS dated 3/17/26 that indicated an antibiotic was received during the 7-day look-back period, but the physician orders and March 2026 MAR lacked an order or administration for an antibiotic. Resident 23, with a diagnosis of atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery, had an admission MDS dated 4/23/26 that indicated an anticoagulant had been administered during the 7-day look-back period, while antiplatelet was not marked. However, current physician orders included aspirin 81 mg daily, which is an antiplatelet, and the clinical record lacked an order for an anticoagulant. The April 2026 MAR showed aspirin was administered on 4/21/26, 4/22/26, and 4/23/26. During interview, the MDS Coordinator stated medications should not be listed on the MDS if they were not given during the look-back period and acknowledged the assessments for Resident 7, Resident F, and Resident 23 needed to be modified for accuracy.
Late Administration of Scheduled IV Antibiotic
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow its medication administration policy by giving a resident’s IV antibiotic after the ordered time. During an observation on 5/7/26, Resident E was sitting in her chair and stated that staff were often late starting her IV antibiotics, which were supposed to begin at 8:00 A.M. During the medication pass observation later that morning, an LPN administered Resident E’s IV antibiotic at 9:48 A.M., after the scheduled time. Resident E’s record showed diagnoses including a surgical site infection, and the most recent MDS dated 5/4/26 indicated she was cognitively intact and receiving an antibiotic. Her physician orders included Cefepime 1 gram in 100 ml IV to run over 30 minutes at 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M., starting 5/6/26. The MAR documented Cefepime as given at 8:00 A.M. with a note that it was charted late at 9:50 A.M. The facility’s Administering Medications policy, revised April 2019, stated medications are to be administered within one hour of the prescribed time, and the Administrator stated there was a one-hour window for medications to be given from the time due.
Failure to Maintain Sanitary Incontinence Care During Resident Hygiene
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide sanitary incontinence care for 2 of 2 observed incontinence care events. During care for Resident 5, two LPNs applied ABHR and gloves, then handled the resident’s blanket, incontinence pad, and body care tasks. One LPN touched the inside of a clean incontinence pad with soiled gloves while positioning it, removed and replaced her gloves once, but did not sanitize hands or change gloves throughout the entire process. The other LPN also touched the inside of the clean incontinence pad while repositioning it and did not sanitize hands or change gloves during the care. After the care was completed, both LPNs went to the bathroom to wash their hands, and a saturated disposable pad was observed on the roommate’s recliner near the bathroom door and was not disposed of before they left the room. During incontinence care for Resident 2, an LPN donned gloves and then used the same gloves to handle the oxygen tubing, move the mechanical lift, assist with transfer from wheelchair to bed, unhook the lift pad, and place a clean incontinence pad on the bed. The LPN continued using the same gloves to help remove the resident’s pants, unfasten the soiled incontinence pad, clean the perineal area, roll the resident, scoop stool with the incontinence pad, remove the soiled brief, and wipe the buttocks. The LPN did not perform hand hygiene or change gloves before placing the clean incontinence pad under the resident, and then used the soiled gloves to move the resident’s oxygen tubing and pull down the resident’s shirt. The Infection Preventionist stated gloves should be changed if items are touched prior to incontinence care and hand hygiene should be performed and gloves changed between dirty and clean tasks.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 116 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 1 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Jasper
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cathedral Health Care Center | 1.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Serenity Spring Senior Living At Northwood | 2.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 2 | 0 |
| Timbers Of Jasper The | 3.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 3 | 0 |
| St Charles Health Campus | 3.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Waters Of Huntingburg, The | 5.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 19 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Brookside Village Inc.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 2026) and official state health department websites.