HICKORY CREEK AT GREENSBURG
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Hickory Creek at Greensburg has a Trust Grade of B, meaning it is a good facility and generally a solid choice for families. It ranks #150 out of 505 nursing homes in Indiana, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 5 in Decatur County, indicating there is only one better option nearby. The facility's trend is improving, with issues decreasing from 9 in 2023 to 4 in 2024. However, staffing is a concern, rated at only 1 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 46%, which is slightly below the state average. There have been specific incidents noted, such as not having a registered nurse on duty for eight consecutive hours on several days and unsanitary conditions in the kitchen, such as improperly stored food, which raises potential health risks for residents.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Indiana
- #150/505
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 46% 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 ○ Average
- Each resident gets 37 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Indiana. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 22 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 22 deficiencies on record
Oct 2024
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
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 obtain laboratory results and start and antibiotic in a timely mann...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow a physician's order related to hold parameters for insulin for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident 10)
...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate of less than 5% related to medication errors for 1 of 4 residents observed for medication ad...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the required RN (Registered Nurse) on duty for eight consecutive hours a day for 12 of 29 days reviewed.
Findings include:
During ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 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
Deficiency F0744
(Tag F0744)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement interventions to address a resident's dementia care needs related to wandering into other resident's personal space for 1 of 4 re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
8 deficiencies
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete neurological assessments after a fall for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident 22)
Findings include:
D...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate interventions were in place for a resident at risk for pressure ulcers that currently had a pressure ulcer...
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 the identified fall intervention, of a trapeze bar, was accessible for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for accident hazards....
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to administer medications for a Urinary Tract Infection for 1 of 14 residents reviewed. (Resident 17)
Findings include:
During a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor/assess a resident's fistula following dialysis treatments for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis. (Resident 24)
Findings includ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow the physician's order to discontinue a medication after a pharmacy recommendation for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medi...
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 and interview, the facility failed to follow infection control guidelines for 1 of 2 wound observations (Resident 12) and 1 of 2 insulin administrations (Resident 3).
Findings in...
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 store dry foods in a sanitary manner related to the dry storage room. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2022
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0602
(Tag F0602)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to prevent misappropriation of resident medications for 1 of 11 residents reviewed. (Resident 9)
Findings include:
A Facility Reportable Incid...
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, the facility failed to follow the physicians' orders and complete neurological assessments after falls for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for falls. (Residents 15 and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to administer wound treatments for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Resident 4)
Findings include:
On 09/06/22 at ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
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 monitor bruit and thrill for a dialysis site for 1 of 1 resident re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow physician's orders related to hold parameters for a blood pressure medication for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medicati...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to store medications appropriately for 2 of 2 medication carts reviewed....
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
4. The clinical record for Resident 6 was reviewed on 09/06/22 at 10:05 A.M. An admission MDS assessment, dated 06/01/22, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The diagnoses included, but wer...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to have medications available for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Residents 6 and 9)
Findings include:
1. The clinical...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the required RN (Registered Nurse) on duty for eight hours a day for 2 of the 8 days during the survey time period.
Findings includ...
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.
- • 22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Hickory Creek At Greensburg's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns HICKORY CREEK AT GREENSBURG 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 Hickory Creek At Greensburg Staffed?
CMS rates HICKORY CREEK AT GREENSBURG's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 46%, compared to the Indiana average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Hickory Creek At Greensburg?
State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at HICKORY CREEK AT GREENSBURG during 2022 to 2024. These included: 22 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Hickory Creek At Greensburg?
HICKORY CREEK AT GREENSBURG 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 AMERICAN SENIOR COMMUNITIES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 36 certified beds and approximately 28 residents (about 78% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in GREENSBURG, Indiana.
How Does Hickory Creek At Greensburg Compare to Other Indiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Indiana, HICKORY CREEK AT GREENSBURG's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (46%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Hickory Creek At Greensburg?
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 Hickory Creek At Greensburg Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, HICKORY CREEK AT GREENSBURG 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 Hickory Creek At Greensburg Stick Around?
HICKORY CREEK AT GREENSBURG has a staff turnover rate of 46%, which is about average for Indiana nursing homes (state average: 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 Hickory Creek At Greensburg Ever Fined?
HICKORY CREEK AT GREENSBURG 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 Hickory Creek At Greensburg on Any Federal Watch List?
HICKORY CREEK AT GREENSBURG 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.