Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around March 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 Harrison Springs Health Campus during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
Resident Council minutes were not consistently recorded, and grievance follow-up was not documented in the minutes reviewed. Residents raised concerns about menu changes, wheelchair transfer assistance, and delayed staff response when using the toilet, but the available notes lacked monthly documentation and did not show responses to concerns. The Resident Council President and activity staff described monthly meetings, yet the binder contained only a few sets of minutes and several meetings were missing from the record.
Failure to Hold Medications Outside Ordered Vital Sign Parameters The facility administered BP and diabetes medications outside physician-set hold parameters for multiple residents. Metoprolol, midodrine, and insulin were given or managed without following ordered SBP, DBP, pulse, or blood sugar limits, and MD/NP notification was not documented when required. Staff interviews confirmed that medications should be held when vital signs are outside the ordered parameters and the physician notified.
Three residents with behavioral health needs, including exit-seeking and aggression, were not consistently provided with one-on-one supervision by facility staff. Instead, the facility relied on family members or outside agency sitters to supervise these residents, and only provided staff supervision temporarily when family was unavailable. This resulted in a failure to ensure sufficient staff with the necessary competencies and skills to meet the behavioral health needs of these residents.
A resident with a history of amputation and diabetes developed an open surgical wound, but staff failed to document physician notification when the wound dehisced. Nursing staff observed the wound opening and a remaining staple, notified a supervisor, and left a voicemail for the physician's office, but there was no evidence of follow-up or documentation that the physician was informed as required by facility policy.
Resident Council Minutes and Grievance Follow-Up Not Documented
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure Resident Council Minutes were recorded monthly for 11 of 13 months reviewed and failed to ensure follow-up responses to grievances were documented for 13 of 13 months reviewed. During record review and interviews, the Resident Council binder contained only December 2025 and April 2026 minutes from the period reviewed, with no documented minutes from 2023 and 2024 and no monthly minutes for most of April 2025 through April 2026. The Resident Council policy stated that minutes were to be recorded and maintained for at least 2 years and that actions taken or considerations given to issues were to be reported back at the next meeting. During interviews, Activity Aide 3 stated the Resident Council President had the minutes and that the binder with the most recent meeting minutes was found on 4/14/26. The Resident Council President stated that meetings were held monthly with staff present, but she did not document all of them and felt it was her responsibility, though she let it slide. Activity Aide 4 stated residents had monthly meetings and that two activity aides helped direct the meetings, while the Resident Council President took notes and activities staff also took notes. The President later presented notes from February and March 2026 and stated that sometimes staff made copies of the minutes, but sometimes they were lost in transmission. At the Resident Council meeting observed on 4/17/26, residents voiced concerns that menus changed from the printed menu and that they wanted more assistance with wheelchair transfers. Resident 50 stated staff took 30 to 40 minutes to respond when she was on the bedside toilet or bathroom toilet, and residents were unsure whether the facility responded to their concerns. The minutes reviewed by surveyors did not document grievance follow-up, and the ED stated that a previous Activities Director had not been documenting the Resident Council meetings as she should have. The ED also stated that activity staff would verbalize resident grievances to Administration if they felt they were important and that she would review them and let staff know what follow-up would be completed, but the minutes presented still lacked documentation of follow-up responses.
Failure to Hold Medications Outside Ordered Vital Sign Parameters
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to hold medications when residents’ vital signs were outside physician-ordered parameters and failed to notify the physician or NP when required. This affected 5 of 8 residents reviewed for medications with set hold parameters: Residents 20, 22, 53, 6, and 52. The report documents multiple instances in which metoprolol, midodrine, and insulin were administered or managed without following the ordered blood pressure, pulse, or blood sugar limits. Resident 20 had diagnoses including paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and portal hypertension, and the care plan addressed cardiovascular distress. The physician ordered metoprolol succinate ER 50 mg daily to be held for SBP less than 105 mmHg or heart rate less than 60 bpm, and blood pressure notification was required for SBP greater than 165 mmHg or DBP greater than 100 mmHg. The MAR showed metoprolol was given on multiple occasions when the pulse was below 60 and when blood pressure readings were below the hold parameters. The record also lacked documentation that the MD or NP was notified of an elevated SBP of 169. Resident 22 had diagnoses including interstitial pulmonary disease, orthostatic hypotension, and atherosclerotic heart disease, with a care plan for cardiovascular distress. The physician ordered metoprolol succinate ER 50 mg twice daily to be held if SBP was less than 100 or DBP was less than 60. The March 2026 MAR showed the medication was administered when DBP was 58 and 57. Resident 53 had diagnoses including acute respiratory failure with hypoxia and diabetes mellitus, with care plans for cardiovascular distress and blood sugar monitoring. The resident had an order for insulin lispro sliding scale with instructions to call the MD if blood sugar was greater than 400, but the MAR showed blood sugar readings of 478 and 461 without MD notification. The resident also had a metoprolol order to hold for SBP less than 105, DBP less than 60, or pulse less than 60, and the medication was administered on several occasions outside those parameters. Resident 6 had diagnoses including atrial fibrillation, aortic valve stenosis, chronic pulmonary edema, hypertensive heart disease, and CHF. The resident had orders for midodrine to be held if SBP was greater than 130 and metoprolol succinate to be held if SBP was less than 100 or pulse was less than 60. The record showed midodrine was held on several dates without a documented blood pressure reading, and metoprolol was administered when SBP was 98 on two occasions. Resident 52 had CHF and chronic pain syndrome, with an order for midodrine 10 mg every 8 hours to be held if SBP was greater than 125; the MAR showed the medication was administered when SBP was 127. Staff interviews confirmed that medications with set parameters were to be held and the physician notified when vital signs were outside ordered limits.
Failure to Provide Sufficient Staff for Behavioral Health Supervision
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that sufficient staff with appropriate competencies and skills were available to meet the behavioral health needs of residents requiring one-on-one supervision. For three residents with exit-seeking behaviors and other behavioral health concerns, the facility relied on family members or outside agency sitters to provide necessary supervision, rather than consistently providing this care through facility staff. In several instances, the facility contacted family members to sit with residents or to arrange for private sitters, and when family could not provide supervision, the facility considered alternate placement for the residents. One resident with dementia and a history of exit-seeking was observed wandering without required safety devices and was only provided one-on-one supervision when family or an outside agency sitter was available. Another resident with multiple medical and behavioral diagnoses, including agitation and aggression, required one-on-one supervision due to exit-seeking and aggressive behaviors. The facility communicated to the family that it could not provide ongoing one-on-one care and that the family would need to arrange supervision or consider alternate placement. During periods when family members were unavailable, staff provided one-on-one care only temporarily, and the facility continued to seek alternate placement. A third resident with dementia and a history of falls was admitted and subsequently found outside the facility attempting to leave. The care plan called for one-on-one supervision until alternate placement could be found, but the facility again relied on family to provide this supervision. The facility's approach to residents requiring intensive behavioral supervision was to request family or outside agencies to provide care, and only provided staff supervision for short periods, indicating a lack of sufficient staff to meet these residents' behavioral health needs as required.
Failure to Notify Physician of Surgical Wound Dehiscence
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when the facility failed to ensure that a physician was notified and/or follow-up occurred after a resident's surgical wound opened. The resident, who had a history of left toe amputation, an open wound of the left foot, gangrene, orthopedic aftercare, and diabetes, was under a care plan that required monitoring and treatment of a surgical incision. Physician orders specified wound care procedures, and the resident was noted to be cognitively intact and in need of surgical wound care. Documentation showed that the resident experienced worsening pain and drainage from the surgical site, with the physician noting a lack of healing and the need for further surgical intervention. On a subsequent date, nursing staff observed the resident's incision had a small open area and a remaining staple, and while the supervisor was notified and a voicemail was left for the physician's office regarding the staple, there was no documentation that the physician was informed about the wound opening. Interviews with nursing staff revealed uncertainty about when the wound began to open and whether the physician or nurse practitioner was properly notified. One nurse indicated she informed her supervisor about the wound opening and assumed the physician would be notified, but could not confirm if this occurred. Another LPN stated that while a voicemail was left about the staple, there was no evidence of follow-up or documentation regarding the open incision. The facility's policy required documentation of physician notification attempts and responses, but the record lacked evidence that the physician was informed about the surgical wound dehiscence.
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 266 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 4 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 Corydon
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indian Creek Healthcare Center | 2.6 mi | ★★★★★ | 5 | 0 |
| Harrison Healthcare Center | 2.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 5 | 0 |
| Todd-dickey Nursing And Rehabilitation | 10.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
| Waters Of Georgetown, The | 10.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 9 | 0 |
| Villages At Historic Silvercrest The | 16.3 mi | ★★★★★ | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Harrison Springs Health Campus.
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.