PEABODY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Peabody Retirement Community in North Manchester, Indiana has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns. It ranks #279 out of 505 nursing homes in the state, placing it in the bottom half, and #6 out of 8 in Wabash County, meaning only two facilities in the area are worse. The facility is showing signs of improvement, as the number of reported issues decreased from 13 in 2024 to 7 in 2025. However, staffing is a weakness, rated at 2 out of 5 stars with a turnover rate of 51%, which is around the state average. There have been concerning incidents, including a resident who eloped overnight and was unaccounted for, as well as another who ingested a sharpener blade due to lack of supervision, leading to hospitalization. Additionally, the facility is facing fines totaling $33,518, which is higher than 87% of Indiana facilities, and it has less RN coverage than 94% of its peers.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Indiana
- #279/505
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 51% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $33,518 in fines. Higher than 65% of Indiana facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 23 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Indiana. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 33 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 average (3.1)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Indiana avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
The Ugly 33 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
7 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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to promote resident dignity by failing to provide prompt care for bowel incontinence for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for dignity. (...
Read full inspector narrative →
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who self-administered medications were assessed for safety for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for medication self...
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 and record review, the facility failed to monitor bowel movements and initiate the facility's bowel protocol for a resident with constipation for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for consti...
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
B1. During an observation on 4/3/25 at 12:02 p.m., Resident 153 was seated in a wheelchair in his room. The outline of a dressing was observed on the resident's right heel under his sock. The resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0865
(Tag F0865)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement approaches to maintain a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program to prevent repeat deficiencies....
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 and interview, the facility failed to prepare and distribute food in a safe and sanitary manner. This deficient practice has the potential to affect 46 of 46 residents who receive...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** A6. During an observation on 4/2/25 at 4:52 p.m., CNA 15 approached Resident 153's room, where a droplet isolation sign was in p...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2024
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
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 prevent staff-to-resident verbal abuse of a dependent resident (Res...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who was cognitively impaired and assessed as an elopement risk, was observed overnight and provided with ca...
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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to report accurate information regarding an elopement for 1 of 1 faci...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
7 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
2. During an observation, on 4/24/24 at 12:20 p.m., Resident 82 was lying in bed without pants. His bilateral lower legs had a dark discoloration from his ankles to mid-calf.
During an observation an...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During an observation, on 4/25/24 at 11:06 a.m., Resident 120 was seated in his recliner with his legs elevated. He had a dre...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0744
(Tag F0744)
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 develop and implement a system of individualized beha...
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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were labeled with resident identifiers and directions for 2 of 5 medication carts reviewed. (Rehabilitation Cart 1 and Reh...
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 utilize infection prevention and control strategies to prevent contamination of wounds during wound care for 2 of 3 residents...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to make nursing staffing data readily available in a pro...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0839
(Tag F0839)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an LPN employed to work in the facility in the nursing department had a valid Indiana nursing license or an active out...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
2 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0744
(Tag F0744)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure services for effective supervision were provided to ensure a pencil sharpener was not left unattended and within the r...
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
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 identify effective, individualized interventions to p...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
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 F0602
(Tag F0602)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's narcotic medication was free from diversion for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for misappropriation of medication (Resident B...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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 F0919
(Tag F0919)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the call light system was operational. This deficiency had the...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0744
(Tag F0744)
A resident was harmed · 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 provide appropriate interventions related to dementia ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
11 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, record review, and interview, the facility staff failed to serve residents in a dignified manner during observation of 1 of 4 dining rooms observed for dining services. (Resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to honor the preference for a resident's preferred time to wake in the mornings for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for choices. (Resident 36)
Findi...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** A. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to timely notify the physician and family of a signif...
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 ensure communication between the hospice company and the facility staff for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for end of life services (Resident 36...
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 complete routine assessments of stage IV pressure ulcer to determine worsening and failed to ensure wound care was provided i...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement fall interventions to prevent further falls ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment was stored in a sanitary...
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure insulin pens were labeled with the dates opene...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure foods were handled in a sanitary manner during 1 of 5 dining room observations for meal services.
Findings include:
Dur...
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 handle a catheter drainage bag in a sanitary manner to prevent infection for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for catheters (Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0574
(Tag F0574)
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 Long Term Care Ombudsman contact information ...
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?"
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s), $33,518 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 33 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $33,518 in fines. Higher than 94% of Indiana facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (18/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Peabody Retirement Community's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns PEABODY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY 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 Peabody Retirement Community Staffed?
CMS rates PEABODY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 51%, compared to the Indiana average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Peabody Retirement Community?
State health inspectors documented 33 deficiencies at PEABODY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, 28 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Peabody Retirement Community?
PEABODY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 192 certified beds and approximately 176 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in NORTH MANCHESTER, Indiana.
How Does Peabody Retirement Community Compare to Other Indiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Indiana, PEABODY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (51%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Peabody Retirement Community?
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?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Peabody Retirement Community Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, PEABODY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). 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 Peabody Retirement Community Stick Around?
PEABODY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY has a staff turnover rate of 51%, 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 Peabody Retirement Community Ever Fined?
PEABODY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY has been fined $33,518 across 4 penalty actions. The Indiana average is $33,414. 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 Peabody Retirement Community on Any Federal Watch List?
PEABODY RETIREMENT COMMUNITY 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.