Average — CMS composite of the measures below.
The next survey window likely opens around November 2026
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 Sellersburg Healthcare Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident admitted with documented coccyx, buttock, and abdominal fold skin issues from the hospital was assessed on admission by an RN as having no skin areas noted, while an IDT skin assessment the next day identified non-blanchable areas and excoriation. Physician orders for Calmoseptine to a deep tissue injury and specific sacral wound care three times daily were not fully documented on the treatment administration record, and multiple administrations of PRN Oxycodone-Acetaminophen recorded on the controlled substance log were not documented on the MAR, despite facility policy requiring current and complete medication and treatment documentation.
Surveyors observed that two of six medication carts on separate halls were left unlocked and unattended, contrary to facility policy and state regulations requiring medications to be stored safely and securely. An LPN acknowledged that carts should be locked when not attended, and the DON provided a written medication storage policy stating that medication carts must be locked when unattended.
A facility failed to properly manage medication storage and administration for insulin, eye drops, and narcotics. Insulin pens for several residents were found with open dates and handwritten expiration dates that had passed, a resident’s eye drops lacked the required label and open date, and two residents had narcotics signed out as given even though the doses were not actually administered at the time documented. Staff interviews confirmed inconsistent handling of medication labeling, expiration checks, and narcotic sign-out practices.
Missed Twice-Weekly Bathing Care: The facility failed to ensure two residents received a shower or bed bath at least twice weekly. One resident with COPD, CHF, schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, dyskinesia, chronic pain, and mild neurocognitive disorder required partial to moderate assistance with showering, yet shower records showed many dates with no documentation of a shower or refusal and the resident said showers were often skipped. Another resident with ESRD and bipolar disorder required substantial to maximum assistance with bathing and showering, but shower sheets also showed numerous missing entries and there was no documentation that the resident refused care. During the Resident Council meeting, residents reported that showers were not being provided as scheduled.
Catheter drainage bags were repeatedly observed sitting on the floor for two residents with neurogenic bladder and UTI history, with no barrier between the drainage system and the floor. One resident’s tubing was also on the floor, and during CNA care the bag was lifted above bladder level, causing urine to flow back up the tubing toward the resident. Both residents’ care plans lacked an intervention addressing a barrier between the catheter collection bag and the floor, despite orders for catheter care, securement, and drainage management.
A resident with hypotension was administered Midodrine HCl multiple times when their systolic blood pressure was above the physician-ordered hold parameter. Despite clear orders to withhold the medication if SBP exceeded 120, staff administered the medication on several occasions with SBP readings between 125 and 141, as confirmed by medication records and staff interviews.
The facility failed to administer insulin as ordered for three residents, resulting in consistent delays. A resident with diabetes experienced late administration of Lantus and Humalog, affecting blood sugar levels. Another resident faced similar issues with insulin glargine and Humalog, with late administration documented throughout September and October. A third resident, with diabetes and a below-the-knee amputation, also received insulin late, raising concerns about high blood sugar levels. Staff interviews revealed challenges in managing medication administration due to workload.
The facility failed to meet residents' meal preferences due to repeated substitutions and unavailability of scheduled menu items, leading to dissatisfaction and dietary issues. Residents reported receiving the same meals multiple times a week, and a resident on a renal diet was served unsuitable foods. Observations showed that planned menus were not followed, with substitutions made without informing residents. The facility's policies on food quality and menu planning were not adhered to, contributing to the deficiency.
The facility failed to serve meals at appropriate temperatures and ensure palatability, affecting many residents. Residents reported cold, unappealing food, and repetitive meals. Temperature checks revealed food items not meeting required temperatures, with some needing reheating or removal. A test tray showed unsatisfactory temperatures and taste. A resident on a renal diet received unsuitable foods. The facility's policy on food quality was not followed.
The facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the kitchen, with observations of food particles, grime, and unsanitary equipment during inspections. The cleaning schedule did not address key areas, and the facility's policy on cleanliness was not followed.
The facility failed to ensure proper infection control measures during high contact care, with CNAs observed not following hand hygiene protocols after handling soiled linens and trash. Residents with severe medical conditions, including those with tracheotomies and multidrug-resistant infections, were at risk due to these lapses. Despite previous staff education on infection control, the facility's policies were not consistently enforced, particularly in high-risk units.
The facility failed to provide adequate mobility assistance and mouth care for two residents. One resident with a below-the-knee amputation was not consistently assisted to get out of bed despite a physician's order for daily mobility. Another resident, fully dependent on staff for care, was observed with poor personal hygiene and inadequate oral care, contrary to the prescribed care plan. These deficiencies highlight a lack of adherence to care protocols for residents' daily living activities.
Two residents in the facility experienced deficiencies in perineal and catheter care, leading to urinary tract infections. A resident with an indwelling catheter received improper cleaning, and the catheter bag was mishandled, causing urine backflow. Another resident, incontinent due to impaired mobility, had a resistant bacterial infection requiring antibiotics. Facility policies on hygiene were not adequately followed, contributing to these issues.
The facility failed to increase free water flushes for a resident with a gastrostomy as ordered, and did not adhere to blood pressure medication parameters for another resident with orthostatic hypotension. The nurse practitioner did not enter the increased water flush order into the system, and the medication was administered despite the resident's SBP exceeding the prescribed limit.
A facility failed to provide indwelling catheter care for a resident upon readmission. The resident, with a history of cerebral infarction and urinary retention, had a care plan requiring catheter care every shift. However, after readmission, there was no documentation of catheter care for two days, despite the RN confirming it should be implemented upon admission.
A facility failed to implement a lab order for a resident with hypercalcemia, as a nurse practitioner did not enter the order for a BMP into the system. Despite notes indicating the need for the test, the clinical record lacked documentation of it being obtained. The DON confirmed the nurse practitioner's responsibility for entering the order, which was not fulfilled.
Incomplete Admission Skin Assessment and Medication/Wound Treatment Documentation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident’s admission evaluation accurately reflected wounds present on admission and failed to maintain complete and accurate treatment documentation. Hospital discharge records for Resident C indicated areas to the coccyx, left buttock, and excoriation to the abdominal folds, but the facility’s admission evaluation assessment completed by an RN on the day of admission documented no skin areas noted. The following day, an IDT skin assessment documented non-blanchable areas to the sacrum and left buttock and excoriation to the abdominal folds. The facility’s own admission evaluation policy required a systemic evaluation by a licensed nurse upon admission/readmission to determine appropriate care needs. The facility also failed to document completion of ordered wound treatments and administration of PRN narcotic pain medication for the same resident. Physician’s orders directed application of Calmoseptine to a deep tissue injury on the left buttock and specific wound care to the sacral wound three times daily, yet the February treatment administration record lacked documentation of treatment completion for certain ordered times. Additionally, although controlled substance administration records showed multiple administrations of Oxycodone-Acetaminophen for pain, the February and March medication administration records lacked corresponding documentation of these doses. Facility policy defined the MAR as the legal documentation for medication administration and required medications to be charted when given, with PRN medications including the reason and effectiveness, and documentation to be current.
Unlocked and Unattended Medication Carts
Penalty
Summary
Surveyors identified a deficiency related to the facility’s failure to ensure medications were stored securely in locked carts when unattended. During observations on 4/17/26 between 1:14 p.m. and 1:18 p.m., the medication cart on the 100 Hall was found unlocked and unattended, and at 1:20 p.m. the medication cart on the 300 Hall was also observed to be unlocked and unattended. In an interview at 1:22 p.m., an LPN confirmed that medication carts were supposed to be locked when not attended. The DON provided the facility’s current “Storage of Medications” policy, dated 9/2025, which states that medications are to be stored safely, securely, and properly, and that medication carts are to be locked when not attended, consistent with 410 IAC 16.2-3.1-25(m). No specific residents or their medical conditions were mentioned in relation to these observations, and the deficiency centers on the unsecured status of two of six medication carts while left unattended, contrary to facility policy and regulatory requirements.
Medication Labeling, Expiration Monitoring, and Narcotic Documentation Failures
Penalty
Summary
Pharmaceutical services were not provided in a way that met resident needs because insulin flexpens were not being monitored for expiration dates for four residents. During observation, one resident’s Glargine flexpen had an open date of 11/4/25 with a handwritten expiration date of 12/3/25, another resident’s Humalog flexpen had an open date of 11/5/25 with a handwritten expiration date of 11/21/25, a third resident’s Glargine flexpen had the same open date and handwritten expiration date, and a fourth resident’s Glargine flexpen had an open date of 11/9/25 with a handwritten expiration date of 12/9/25. The records for these residents showed active diabetes diagnoses, insulin orders, and recent blood sugar monitoring and MAR documentation showing insulin administration during the period the pens were in use. The facility also failed to ensure eye drops were properly labeled for one resident. During observation, the resident’s Latanoprost eye drops had no label with the physician’s order, pharmacy information, or open date on the bottle, and there was no box available for the medication. RN 9 stated she should verify the order, note the expiration date, check resident information, and check the MAR, and said she threw away the bottle because the physician’s order was not with it. RN 10 stated she should check expiration dates before administering medication and that she did not sign out medications until she administered them. The resident’s record showed an order for Latanoprost eye drops and MAR documentation that the medication had been administered during the month. The facility further failed to document narcotic administration correctly for two residents. For one resident, an LPN was observed bringing a pain pill to the resident and stated she had forgotten to give it; however, the narcotic count later showed the oxycodone had already been signed out as given at the scheduled time. For another resident, the narcotic count showed 16 Diazepam tablets remaining on the card while the sign-out sheet showed 14 remaining, and the LPN had signed out 2 tablets as given even though she stated she forgot to give the medication. The RDCO and another LPN stated narcotics should be signed out when the medication is removed and ready to be given, and the medication policy stated narcotics will be signed out when given and medications should be administered within one hour before to one hour after the ordered time.
Missed Twice-Weekly Bathing Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that residents received a minimum of a shower or bed bath twice weekly. This deficient practice affected 2 of 99 residents reviewed for ADLs, including Resident 2 and Resident 14. During the Resident Council meeting, several residents stated they were not getting showers twice weekly according to the shower schedules, and they reported that CNAs either gave no explanation or told them the shower would be provided on the next shift or the next day, which they said was not happening. Resident 2 had diagnoses including COPD, CHF, paranoid schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, drug induced subacute dyskinesia, chronic pain, and mild neurocognitive disorder. Her quarterly MDS indicated moderate cognitive impairment, memory issues, no behavioral issues, and a need for partial to moderate assistance with showering. Her care plan identified a decline in ADLs and included partial to moderate assistance with showering and tub or shower transfers. Review of shower sheets from 9/15/25 through 12/8/25 showed multiple dates with no checkoff indicating whether a shower or bed bath was provided, and the resident stated she was not always getting her showers as scheduled and did not know why they were frequently skipped. Resident 14 had diagnoses including ESRD, bipolar disorder, and dependence on renal dialysis. Her admission MDS indicated she was alert and oriented but sometimes needed cues, had no mood or behavior issues, and required substantial to maximum assistance for showers and bathing, along with partial to moderate assistance for personal hygiene. Her care plan also identified an ADL self-performance deficit and required substantial to maximal assistance with bathing and showering. Review of shower sheets from 9/21/25 through 12/7/25 showed numerous dates with no checkoff for whether a shower or bed bath was given, and progress notes contained no documentation that she refused either service. During interviews, CNAs stated the shower sheets were supposed to be marked Accept or Refusal and that if they were not marked, staff would need to ask the resident or the CNA caring for the resident.
Catheter drainage bags left on the floor
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper management of indwelling urinary catheter drainage systems for two residents with neurogenic bladder and a history of UTIs. During observations, Resident 106’s catheter bag and tubing were repeatedly found on the floor, including when the bag was 2/3 full of urine and later 1/3 full of dark yellow urine, with no barrier between the catheter system and the floor. Resident 7’s catheter drainage system was also observed on the floor on two occasions, with the collection bag partially filled with urine and no barrier between the catheter and the floor. During observed incontinence care for Resident 106, two CNAs performed perineal care and cleaned the tubing, then lifted the catheter bag above the level of the bladder while moving it, causing urine to flow back up the tubing toward the resident. The resident’s record showed an indwelling catheter for neurogenic bladder, orders for catheter care every shift and PRN, securement to prevent movement and urethral traction, and treatment with IV antibiotics for UTI. The care plan for Resident 106 did not include any intervention related to placing a barrier between the catheter collection bag and the floor. Resident 7’s record showed an indwelling catheter for neurogenic bladder, orders for catheter care every shift and PRN, positioning the bag and tubing below bladder level, use of a privacy bag, and enhanced barrier precautions. The care plan did not include any intervention related to placing a barrier between the catheter collection bag and the floor. The facility’s Regional Director of Clinical Operations and Infection Preventionist both stated that there should be a barrier between a catheter collection bag and the floor, and that there was no reason for a catheter collection bag to be on the floor.
Failure to Hold Blood Pressure Medication per Physician Order
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident with a diagnosis of hypotension received Midodrine HCl, a blood pressure medication, despite physician orders specifying that the medication should be held if the resident's systolic blood pressure (SBP) was greater than 120. The medication administration record showed multiple instances where the medication was given when the resident's SBP exceeded the ordered hold parameter, with recorded SBP values ranging from 125 to 141 at the time of administration. During interviews, a Qualified Medication Aide confirmed that medications should be held if the resident's blood pressure is outside the physician's ordered parameters. The Director of Nursing provided a copy of the facility's medication administration policy, which states that medications are to be administered only as prescribed by the provider. The failure to follow the physician's order for holding the medication was identified during a review of the resident's clinical record and medication administration documentation.
Insulin Administration Delays in LTC Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure insulin was administered as ordered by the physician for three residents, leading to significant discrepancies in medication administration. Resident 207, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus, experienced multiple instances where insulin was administered late. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed that both Lantus and Humalog were consistently given outside the prescribed times, sometimes hours after the scheduled administration. This inconsistency in administering insulin could potentially affect the resident's blood sugar levels, as evidenced by the wide range of blood sugar readings recorded. Resident 83, also with type 2 diabetes mellitus, faced similar issues with the administration of insulin glargine and Humalog. The MAR indicated that insulin was frequently administered late, sometimes several hours past the scheduled time. This pattern of late administration was consistent throughout September and into October, with blood sugar readings reflecting a range from 123 mg/dL to 351 mg/dL. The resident's care plan emphasized the importance of timely medication administration, yet the facility failed to adhere to these orders. Resident 204, with a history of diabetes and a below-the-knee amputation, also experienced delays in receiving insulin. The MAR showed that both Lantus and Humalog were administered late on multiple occasions. Interviews with the resident revealed concerns about high blood sugar levels and uncertainty about whether insulin was received on time. Staff interviews highlighted challenges in managing medication administration due to workload, which contributed to the delays. The facility's current medication administration policy requires medications to be given within a specific time frame, which was not consistently followed, leading to the deficiencies noted.
Failure to Meet Residents' Meal Preferences and Dietary Needs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to meet the preferences of residents' meal choices due to the unavailability of scheduled menu items, leading to repeated substitutions and dissatisfaction among residents. During confidential interviews, residents expressed concerns about receiving the same food items multiple times a week, such as hamburgers being served four days in a row, and issues with food quality, including undercooked broccoli and cold meals. Additionally, a resident on a renal diet was served meals containing tomatoes and potatoes, which were not suitable for their dietary restrictions. Observations revealed that the facility did not follow the planned menus, resulting in substitutions without informing or consulting the residents. For instance, on one occasion, teriyaki chicken, stewed tomatoes, and mashed potatoes were served instead of the scheduled bruschetta chicken, seasoned beans, and garlic roasted red potatoes. The Dietary Manager was unaware of the substitutions and the reasons behind running out of the scheduled items. Furthermore, a temperature check of a Caesar salad showed it was not at a safe temperature, leading to its disposal and substitution with broccoli. The facility's policies on food quality and menu planning were not adhered to, as evidenced by the repeated substitutions and failure to serve meals as written. The policies required that food be prepared to conserve nutritive value and served at safe temperatures, with menus planned in advance to meet residents' nutritional needs. However, the facility did not maintain a menu substitution log or inform residents of changes, contributing to the deficiency in meeting residents' meal preferences and dietary needs.
Deficiency in Meal Temperature and Palatability
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that meals were served at appropriate temperatures and were palatable for residents. During confidential interviews, residents expressed concerns about the food being cold, unappealing, and lacking in taste. One resident, who was diabetic, mentioned not receiving enough to eat, while another resident noted that the food often sat in the halls, causing it to cool down before reaching them. These issues were observed during two temperature checks and a meal test tray, affecting a significant number of residents. During a lunch food temperature observation, several food items did not meet the required serving temperatures. For instance, puree chicken and green beans were initially served at lower temperatures and had to be reheated. Potato soup was not served due to inadequate temperature. On another occasion, salads were found to be at inappropriate temperatures and were removed from trays. The replacement food, steamed broccoli, also failed to maintain the required temperature by the time it was served. A test tray revealed that the food items were not at appetizing temperatures, and the taste was unsatisfactory, with ravioli being dry and clumped together, and broccoli undercooked. Residents voiced additional concerns about the repetitive nature of the meals, incorrect meal deliveries, and inadequate portion sizes. One resident, who was on a renal diet, reported being served foods that were not suitable for their dietary restrictions, such as tomatoes and potatoes. The facility's policy on food quality and palatability was not adhered to, as evidenced by the failure to prepare and serve food that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
Facility Fails to Maintain Sanitary Kitchen Conditions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the kitchen, as observed during three separate inspections. During the initial tour, surveyors noted a greenish/gray substance around a drain in the dry storage room, a heavy accumulation of food particles and dirt under the steamer, and multiple white streaks on the steamer and oven doors. The trash can lid near the steamer was heavily soiled, and the ice maker had a coating of white/gray substance. Additionally, the stove top and tray carts were found with food particles and liquid spills, and the entire kitchen floor had a buildup of grime. Subsequent observations revealed that these issues persisted, with additional concerns such as sticky canisters and a greasy preparation sink. The facility's cleaning schedule, which was reviewed, did not address cleaning the dry storage room, food carts, preparation sink, stove, or the floor under equipment. The facility's policy on maintaining a clean environment was not adhered to, as evidenced by the ongoing unsanitary conditions in the kitchen.
Inadequate Infection Control Practices Observed
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure appropriate infection control measures were followed during high contact care, as observed in multiple instances involving Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs). During an initial tour, it was noted that several residents were under enhanced barrier precautions and droplet precautions due to multidrug-resistant organisms and respiratory infections. However, CNAs were observed handling soiled linens and trash without proper hand hygiene. For instance, CNA 39 and CNA 40 were seen carrying soiled linen bags and either not sanitizing their hands or doing so inadequately while still holding the contaminated items. Similar lapses were observed with other CNAs, who failed to wash or sanitize their hands after disposing of waste, potentially contributing to the spread of infections. The report highlights specific cases of residents with severe medical conditions, such as acute respiratory failure, tracheotomies, and multidrug-resistant infections, who were dependent on staff for all activities of daily living. Despite the critical need for stringent infection control in these cases, the facility's staff did not consistently adhere to hand hygiene protocols. For example, Resident 91, who required enhanced barrier precautions due to open wounds and indwelling medical devices, was in a unit where staff were observed not following proper hand hygiene after handling contaminated materials. This lack of compliance with infection control measures was noted despite previous education provided to staff on the importance of hand hygiene, especially in units with high infection rates. Additionally, the facility's infection prevention policies were not adequately implemented, as evidenced by the observations of CNA 4 during perineal care. The CNA did not follow the facility's policy of drying the resident after cleaning, which is a critical step in preventing skin infections and maintaining hygiene. The Infection Preventionist and other staff acknowledged the importance of hand hygiene and proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE) but did not consistently enforce these practices. The report indicates a systemic issue with infection control practices, particularly in high-risk areas such as the ventilation unit, where residents are more susceptible to infections.
Deficiencies in Mobility and Mouth Care for Residents
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide adequate care related to mobility and mouth care for two residents. Resident 46, who had a below-the-knee amputation on the left leg, was observed in bed expressing a desire to get up, but was unsure why he was not assisted. His records indicated he required complete dependence on staff for transfers and needed a wheelchair for mobility. Despite a physician's order to encourage daily mobility, the resident was not consistently assisted to get out of bed. Interviews revealed that staff were aware of the resident's needs and preferences, but there was a lack of consistent action to ensure he was mobilized as required. Resident 250 was observed with greasy, tangled hair and a dry mouth with dried mucous, indicating a lack of personal care. The resident's records showed she was totally dependent on staff for activities of daily living and had a physician's order for mouth care every shift. However, observations and interviews indicated that oral care was not being provided as frequently as needed, with staff acknowledging that oral care should be done every two hours. This lack of adherence to care protocols resulted in the resident's poor personal hygiene and unmet care needs.
Inadequate Perineal and Catheter Care Leads to UTIs
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure proper prevention of urinary tract infections and adequate perineal care for two residents. Resident 4, who has an indwelling urinary catheter due to a neurogenic bladder, was observed receiving inadequate catheter care. During an incontinence care observation, CNAs used the same area of wipes multiple times to clean the resident's scrotum and penis, and did not clean the penis properly. Additionally, the catheter bag was lifted above the resident's bladder, causing urine to flow back toward the resident. The resident's urinalysis indicated a bacterial infection, and subsequent treatment with antibiotics was required. Resident 36, who is incontinent of urine due to impaired mobility, also experienced issues related to urinary tract infections. The resident's urinalysis showed the presence of Klebsiella pneumoniae ESBL, a resistant strain of bacteria, and required treatment with intravenous antibiotics. The resident's care plan included interventions for incontinence management and monitoring for signs of UTI, but the documentation lacked details on cognitive status and specific care actions taken during the resident's admission. The facility's policies on perineal and catheter care emphasize the importance of proper hygiene to reduce the risk of bacteremia and biofilm formation, which can lead to infections. However, the observations and records indicate that these policies were not adequately followed, contributing to the deficiencies noted in the care of Residents 4 and 36.
Failure to Implement Orders and Follow Medication Parameters
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement an increase in free water flushes for a resident with a gastrostomy status, as ordered by a nurse practitioner. The resident's clinical record showed an elevated BUN level, indicating potential kidney function issues. Despite a nurse practitioner's note to increase the free water flushes from 30 ml to 40 ml every hour, the clinical record lacked documentation of this order being entered into the system. The Director of Nursing indicated that the nurse practitioner was responsible for entering the order, but it was not done. Additionally, the facility did not adhere to the parameters for administering blood pressure medication to another resident diagnosed with orthostatic hypotension. The resident was prescribed Midodrine HCl to be administered three times daily, with instructions to hold the medication if the systolic blood pressure (SBP) exceeded 120. However, the medication was administered multiple times when the resident's SBP was above the specified threshold. This was confirmed by a review of the medication administration records and an interview with a registered nurse, who acknowledged that medication parameters should always be followed.
Failure to Implement Indwelling Catheter Care Upon Readmission
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate indwelling catheter care for a resident, identified as Resident B, upon their readmission. Resident B had a medical history that included cerebral infarction, bacterial meningitis, gastrostomy status, and urinary retention, necessitating the use of an indwelling catheter. The care plan, dated July 5, 2024, specified that catheter care should be provided every shift. However, after Resident B was readmitted to the facility following a hospital stay where the catheter was replaced, there was no documentation of catheter care on August 25 and August 26, 2024. An interview with RN 5 confirmed that catheter care should be implemented upon admission, but this was not done for Resident B, as evidenced by the lack of documentation.
Failure to Implement Laboratory Order for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to implement a laboratory order for a resident, identified as Resident B, who was one of three residents reviewed for laboratory services. Resident B had diagnoses including cerebral infarction, respiratory failure, and hypercalcemia. A nurse practitioner noted on two occasions, first on 7/16/24 and again on 7/19/24, that a basic metabolic panel (BMP) was needed due to an elevated calcium level of 10.9, which was above the normal range of 8.5 to 10.2. However, the clinical record lacked documentation of the BMP being obtained as requested. During an interview, the Director of Nursing indicated that the nurse practitioner was responsible for entering the lab order into the system, but this was not done. The facility's policy on laboratory services was provided, which emphasized meeting the physical needs of residents, but the order was not executed, leading to the deficiency.
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 392 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 10 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 Sellersburg
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maple Manor Christian Home Inc | 0.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 13 | 0 |
| Charlestown Place At New Albany | 2.4 mi | ★★★★★ | 33 | 1 |
| Rolling Hills Healthcare Center | 4.1 mi | ★★★★★ | 4 | 0 |
| Westminster Village Kentuckiana | 4.2 mi | ★★★★★ | 16 | 0 |
| Wedgewood Healthcare Center | 4.8 mi | ★★★★★ | 12 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Sellersburg Healthcare Center.
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.