RIPLEY CROSSING
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Ripley Crossing has a Trust Grade of D, which indicates below-average performance with some notable concerns. The facility ranks #285 out of 505 nursing homes in Indiana, placing it in the bottom half of the state, and #3 out of 5 in Ripley County, meaning only two other local options are better. Although the facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 9 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025, there are significant concerns such as $14,265 in fines, which is higher than 86% of Indiana facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance issues. Staffing is a relative strength here, with a 4/5 rating and a turnover rate of 31%, which is lower than the state average of 47%, but RN coverage is a concern, being less than 76% of Indiana facilities. Specific incidents include a critical failure to ensure a resident's safety during a shower, resulting in serious injuries, and concerns about excessively hot water temperatures in resident bathrooms, indicating a need for improved safety measures. Overall, while Ripley Crossing has some strengths in staffing, the critical incidents and fines raise serious concerns that families should consider.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Indiana
- #285/505
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 31% turnover. Near Indiana's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $14,265 in fines. Higher than 78% of Indiana facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 34 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Indiana. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 27 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
-
Staff turnover below average (31%)
17 points below Indiana average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Indiana average (3.1)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
15pts below Indiana avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 27 deficiencies on record
Mar 2025
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow infection control guidelines during a dressing change and touching the floor related to hand hygiene for 1 of 4 reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
3. The clinical record for Resident 61 was reviewed on 10/21/24 at 9:16 A.M. A Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 09/10/24, indicated the resident was not assessed for section C, Cognitive Patterns, and ...
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, observation, and record review, the facility failed to adequately monitor a dialysis access site for 1 of 1 resident that received dialysis treatments. (Resident 42)
Findings inclu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
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 interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to provide safe water temperatures between 100 degrees a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
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
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was treated with respect and dignity for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for resident rights. (Resident F)
Findings include:
...
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
Deficiency F0602
(Tag F0602)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure misappropriation of resident's medications did not occur for 3 of 5 residents reviewed for misappropriation. (Residents B, D, and E)...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
2 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and observation, the facility failed to ensure a shower bed was comprehensively inspected for...
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
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident care equipment was in safe operating condition for two of two shower beds reviewed. (Wing 3 shower bed and Wi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
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 ensure residents were free from verbal and emotional abuse for 2 of ...
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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed ensure staff reported an allegation of abuse in a timely manner for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse. (Residents D and B)
Findings include:...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate oversight of a resident's medication during 1 of 11 medication administration observations. (Resident 1)
F...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
2. The clinical record for Resident 57 was reviewed on 08/17/23 at 2:42 P.M. An Annual MDS assessment, dated 07/07/23, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The diagnoses included, but were n...
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 was initiated for a resident with an intravaginal device for 1 of 20 residents reviewed for care plans. (Resident 53)
Fi...
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow manufacturer's guidelines related to insulin pen usage for 1 of 11 residents reviewed for Quality of Care. (Resident 1...
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
2. The clinical record for Resident 57 was reviewed on 08/17/23 at 2:42 P.M. An Annual MDS assessment, dated 07/07/23, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The diagnoses included, but were n...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to acknowledge a nutrition recommendation and document m...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. Resident 15's clinical record was reviewed on 08/21/23 at 2:32 P.M. A Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 07/15/23, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The diagnoses included, but were not l...
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 appropriate infection control guidelines during medication administration for 1 of 11 residents observed. (Resident 57)
Findings inclu...
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
2. On 08/22/23 at 2:21 P.M., Wing 3's Medication Cart was observed with LPN 9. The following was observed:
- A vial of Lantus (insulin) for Resident 29, that was 1/4 full had an open date of 7/22. LPN...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2022
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 interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to adequately monitor and administer treatments to surgical sites that became infected for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for Quality...
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 monitor, accurately stage, and administer treatments appropriately for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Residen...
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to follow interventions for a fall for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident 60)
Findings include:
The clinical record for Reside...
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 a blood glucose medication for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident 60)
F...
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 and interview, the facility failed to follow a physician's order for a psychotropic medication for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident 65)
Findings ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow the physician's order related to monitoring a blood glucose level prior to administration of diabetic medication for 1 of 6 resident...
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 store medications appropriately related to labeling medications in 2 of 4 medication carts and for 1 of 4 medication rooms re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Laboratory Services
(Tag F0770)
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 a laboratory test for 1 of 19 residents reviewed for laboratory services. (Resident 14)
Findings incl...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 31% turnover. Below Indiana's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 27 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $14,265 in fines. Above average for Indiana. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade D (46/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Ripley Crossing's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns RIPLEY CROSSING an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Indiana, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Ripley Crossing Staffed?
CMS rates RIPLEY CROSSING's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 31%, compared to the Indiana average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Ripley Crossing?
State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at RIPLEY CROSSING during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 26 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Ripley Crossing?
RIPLEY CROSSING is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by MAJOR HOSPITAL, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 100 certified beds and approximately 89 residents (about 89% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in MILAN, Indiana.
How Does Ripley Crossing Compare to Other Indiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Indiana, RIPLEY CROSSING's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (31%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Ripley Crossing?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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 Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is Ripley Crossing Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, RIPLEY CROSSING has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Indiana. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Ripley Crossing Stick Around?
RIPLEY CROSSING has a staff turnover rate of 31%, 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 Ripley Crossing Ever Fined?
RIPLEY CROSSING has been fined $14,265 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Indiana average of $33,222. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Ripley Crossing on Any Federal Watch List?
RIPLEY 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.