SCENIC HILLS AT THE MONASTERY
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Scenic Hills at the Monastery has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families considering a nursing home, but not the top option. It ranks #185 out of 505 facilities in Indiana, placing it in the top half of the state, and #2 out of 7 in Dubois County, meaning only one other local facility is rated higher. Unfortunately, the trend shows the facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 4 in 2025. Staffing is a weakness, rated only 1 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 54%, which is average but still concerning for continuity of care. On a positive note, the facility has no fines on record, suggesting compliance with regulations. However, there have been specific incidents of concern, such as improper medication storage, with unlabeled and partially opened medications found in carts, and food being served under unsanitary conditions, including dirty fryers and unclean kitchen areas. Additionally, resident rooms were not being cleaned daily, as evidenced by complaints about food ground into carpets and visible stains. Overall, while there are some strengths, such as a decent Trust Grade and lack of fines, there are significant weaknesses that families should consider carefully.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Indiana
- #185/505
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 54% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Indiana facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 26 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Indiana. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Indiana avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record
Mar 2025
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain resident dignity, and to protect and promote the rights of the residents. A dependent resident waited several minute...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure services provided met professional standards of quality for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for skin conditions. A blister o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and assistance devices were received to prevent accidents for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for falls...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of diseases and infections for 1 of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate labeling and storage of medications for 2 of 3 medication carts (500 Hall Cart and 300 Hall Cart) with 11 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was served and stored under sanitary conditions during 3 of 3 kitchen observations. This deficiency had the potential to affect 8...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide qualilty care and services timely following resident falls that resulted in fractures for 2 of 3 residents reviewed f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a clean, homelike environment in resident res...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide assistance with bathing for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). A resident did not recei...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. On 6/27/23 at 2:19 P.M., Resident D was seated in a recliner in the commons area of the locked dementia unit.
On 6/27/23 at 2:00 P.M., Resident D's clinical record was reviewed. Diagnoses included,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were in place for 4 of 5 residents observed during perineal/incontinence care. Staff failed to sanitize ha...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2022
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain privacy for 6 of 8 for medication administration and 1 of 1 random interview. An insulin injection was given with th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident in order to meet medical needs that are identified in t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure adequate assistance was provided to ensure the safety of residents during 1 of 2 dining observations, and during 1 of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure sanitary preparation and storage of food. A refrigerator and microwave were observed with debris, coffee mugs were obs...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
4. On 10/28/22 at 9:00 A.M., the PTD (Physical Therapy Director) was observed performing wound care on Resident 49's sacral pressure ulcer. At that time, the PTD indicated that they use the same machi...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure completed staffing sheets were posted daily for 5 of 5 days during the survey.
Findings include:
On 10/24/22 at 11:00 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Indiana facilities.
- • 17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Scenic Hills At The Monastery's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SCENIC HILLS AT THE MONASTERY an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Indiana, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Scenic Hills At The Monastery Staffed?
CMS rates SCENIC HILLS AT THE MONASTERY's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 54%, compared to the Indiana average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Scenic Hills At The Monastery?
State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at SCENIC HILLS AT THE MONASTERY during 2022 to 2025. These included: 16 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Scenic Hills At The Monastery?
SCENIC HILLS AT THE MONASTERY is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by TRILOGY HEALTH SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 88 certified beds and approximately 82 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in FERDINAND, Indiana.
How Does Scenic Hills At The Monastery Compare to Other Indiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Indiana, SCENIC HILLS AT THE MONASTERY's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (54%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Scenic Hills At The Monastery?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.
Is Scenic Hills At The Monastery Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SCENIC HILLS AT THE MONASTERY has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Indiana. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Scenic Hills At The Monastery Stick Around?
SCENIC HILLS AT THE MONASTERY has a staff turnover rate of 54%, which is 8 percentage points above the Indiana average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Scenic Hills At The Monastery Ever Fined?
SCENIC HILLS AT THE MONASTERY has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Scenic Hills At The Monastery on Any Federal Watch List?
SCENIC HILLS AT THE MONASTERY is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.