HOOSIER VILLAGE
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Hoosier Village in Indianapolis has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice among nursing homes, though it’s not the top tier. It ranks #56 out of 505 facilities in Indiana, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 46 in Marion County, meaning only one other local option is better. The facility appears to be improving, with the number of reported issues decreasing from 5 to 3 over the past year. Staffing is a concern, with a turnover rate of 81%, much higher than the state average of 47%, though the site does have more registered nurse coverage than 97% of Indiana facilities, which is a positive sign. While there have been no fines, the inspector noted some concerning incidents, such as insufficient monitoring of high-risk medications for several residents and improper medication storage practices, which could pose risks to residents' safety.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Indiana
- #56/505
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 81% turnover. Very high, 33 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Indiana facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 102 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
- 15 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
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
34pts above Indiana avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
33 points above Indiana average of 48%
The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record
May 2025
3 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan related to falls, intrusive wandering, and elopement for 1 o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and record review, the facility failed to review and revise a care plan for 1 of 5 residents (Resident 9) reviewed for care plan revision.
Findings include:
On 5/5/25 at 11:04 a....
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 observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to complete the proper testing to confirm an infection was present before putting a resident (Resident 5) on an antibiotic. Th...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
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 baseline care plan was developed within 48-hours of admiss...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's comprehensive care plan was revised to meet their wishes for advance directive planning for 1 of 2 residents reviewed f...
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 prevent the potential for accidents by ensuring medications were not left at resident's bedsides for 2 of 4 residents reviewe...
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 observation and interview, the facility failed to date and bag respiratory equipment to protect residents from potential infections for 2 of 3 residents observed (Resident 3 and 168).
Findin...
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 observations and interview, the facility failed to store medications appropriately for 2 of 8 residents reviewed for medication storage (Residents 3 and 217) and 1 of 1 medication storage roo...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure baseline care plans were accurately completed for the immediate needs of resident medications monitoring for 2 of 5 re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were reviewed/revise...
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 medications were not left at bedside of a resident with confusion for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for accidents (Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate care and maintenance of a G/J tube (gastrostomy-jejunostomy) for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for enteral feed...
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 ensure appropriate hand hygiene was performed during a treatment procedure for 1 of 1 resident (Resident 167) observed for Mo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
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 ensure residents received appropriate monitoring for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to properly store medications in 2 of 3 medication rooms and failed to ensure appropriate labeling was placed on a bottle of over...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "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.
- • 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • 81% turnover. Very high, 33 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
About This Facility
What is Hoosier Village's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns HOOSIER VILLAGE 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 Hoosier Village Staffed?
CMS rates HOOSIER VILLAGE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 81%, which is 34 percentage points above the Indiana average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 82%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Hoosier Village?
State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at HOOSIER VILLAGE during 2023 to 2025. These included: 15 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Hoosier Village?
HOOSIER VILLAGE is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by BHI SENIOR LIVING, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 24 certified beds and approximately 12 residents (about 50% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana.
How Does Hoosier Village Compare to Other Indiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Indiana, HOOSIER VILLAGE's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (81%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Hoosier Village?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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 facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Hoosier Village Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, HOOSIER VILLAGE 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 Hoosier Village Stick Around?
Staff turnover at HOOSIER VILLAGE is high. At 81%, the facility is 34 percentage points above the Indiana average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 82%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Hoosier Village Ever Fined?
HOOSIER VILLAGE 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 Hoosier Village on Any Federal Watch List?
HOOSIER VILLAGE 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.