WATERFORD CROSSING
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Waterford Crossing in Goshen, Indiana has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is rated as above average and is recommended for families seeking care. It ranks #105 out of 505 facilities in Indiana, placing it in the top half, and #4 of 12 in Elkhart County, indicating only three local options are better. However, the facility's trend is concerning as it has worsened, with issues increasing from 3 in 2023 to 10 in 2024. Staffing is a strength, with a good rating of 4 out of 5 stars and only a 30% turnover rate, which is significantly lower than the state average. There have been no fines reported, suggesting compliance with regulations, and the facility has more RN coverage than 85% of Indiana facilities, ensuring better oversight of resident care. On the downside, recent inspector findings raised concerns about the facility's cleanliness and adherence to residents' preferences. For example, the kitchen had ice buildup and spills, which could affect food safety, and a resident was not given the opportunity to choose their shower schedule, indicating a lack of attention to individual care preferences. Additionally, another resident with vision impairment did not have a care plan in place to address their needs, suggesting potential gaps in personalized care. Families should weigh these strengths and weaknesses when considering this facility for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Indiana
- #105/505
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 30% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 18 points below Indiana's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Indiana facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 60 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Indiana nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Low Staff Turnover (30%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (30%)
18 points below Indiana average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record
Dec 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to honor a resident's shower preference for 1 of 1 resident reviewed f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a care plan for vision needs was in place for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for communication and sensory needs. (Resident 8)
Finding in...
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 1 of 7 nursing staff administering medications maintained professional standards of quality. (QMA 4)
Findings include:
...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure over the counter medications were labeled appropriately for 1 of 2 medication storage carts. (300 hall- back medication...
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, record review and interview, the facility failed to follow infection control practices regarding enhanced barrier precautions for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis care. (Res...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
During observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a personalized care plan for 1 of 22 residents whose care plans were reviewed. (Resident 49)
Finding incl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 interview, record review, and observation, the facility failed to provide treatment for a skin tear and dry skin for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for non-pressure related skin conditions. (Resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
3. During observations on 1/22/204 at 9:38 A.M., 1/23/2024 at 10:44 A.M., and 1/24/2024 at 3:12 P.M., Resident 50's CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) mask was observed lying on the bedside ta...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Physician reviewed a Medication Regimen Review (MRR) provided by the Pharmacist following a monthly MRR, for 1 out o...
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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 4 nursing staff (QMA 4) administering medications followed infection control policies regarding hand washing.
Fin...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
3 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
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to protect a residents' right to participate in a religious activity i...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to assure that an allegation of abuse was reported to the State Survey...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation was completed for an allegation of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and records review the facility failed to provide timely physician notification of respiratory symptoms for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for respiratory care. (Resident 3...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan for 3 out of 23 r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 record review and interview and observation, the facility failed to assess, and monitor a skin issue for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for skin issues, failed to follow physician orders for press...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, observation, and record review the facility failed to provide equipment (tubing, filter, mask and water chamber) replacements and routine sanitation of a continuous positive airway...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to complete an AIMS assessment timely and failed to have adequate justification for the increase of an antipsychotic medication i...
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 observations and interviews the facility failed to provide a sanitary refrigerator and storage for the residents' nutrition needs in 3 out of 3 unit nutrition pantries that were observed.
Fin...
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
- • Grade B+ (88/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Indiana.
- • 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.
- • 30% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 18 points below Indiana's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Waterford Crossing's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns WATERFORD CROSSING an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Waterford Crossing Staffed?
CMS rates WATERFORD CROSSING's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 30%, compared to the Indiana average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Waterford Crossing?
State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at WATERFORD CROSSING during 2022 to 2024. These included: 19 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Waterford Crossing?
WATERFORD CROSSING 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 87 certified beds and approximately 73 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in GOSHEN, Indiana.
How Does Waterford Crossing Compare to Other Indiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Indiana, WATERFORD CROSSING's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (30%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Waterford Crossing?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"
Is Waterford Crossing Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, WATERFORD CROSSING 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 5-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 Waterford Crossing Stick Around?
Staff at WATERFORD CROSSING tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 30%, the facility is 16 percentage points below the Indiana average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 11%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.
Was Waterford Crossing Ever Fined?
WATERFORD CROSSING 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 Waterford Crossing on Any Federal Watch List?
WATERFORD CROSSING 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.