HICKORY CREEK AT PERU
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Hickory Creek at Peru has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not outstanding. It ranks #252 out of 505 facilities in Indiana, placing it in the top half of the state, and #3 out of 4 in Miami County, meaning only one local option is better. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 8 in 2023 to 7 in 2024. However, staffing is a concern, rated at only 1 out of 5 stars, with a high turnover rate of 69%, suggesting frequent staff changes that can affect resident care. On a positive note, there have been no fines, which is better than many facilities, and the nursing coverage is average. Recent inspections revealed some troubling incidents. For example, the kitchen failed to ensure that food items were properly labeled with expiration dates, which could potentially affect all residents relying on those meals. Additionally, the facility did not develop a proper care plan for a resident with significant positioning issues, which is critical for their comfort and safety. While there are some strengths, such as the lack of fines, the issues found indicate that families should carefully consider their options.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Indiana
- #252/505
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 69% 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 30 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Indiana. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 16 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
23pts above Indiana avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
21 points above Indiana average of 48%
The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record
Sept 2024
7 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, record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for a resident with positioning issues for 1 of 17 residents reviewed. (Resi...
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to revise care plans for fluid consumption for 1 of 17 residents whose care plans were reviewed. (Resident 4)
Finding includes:
The record for...
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received the appropriate therapeutic diet for 1 o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to post daily nurse staffing data timely.
Finding includes:
During an observation on 9/25/2024 at 10:43 A.M., the nurse staffing data posting fo...
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 medication carts were free from loose pills and...
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 ensure infection control practices were followed when administering insulin for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for insulin administration. (Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0570
(Tag F0570)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Surety Bond amount was sufficient to cover the Resident's personal fund account. This deficient practice had the potential to ef...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
8 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Resident with a history of constipation and ileus was assessed, medicated and had their physician notified of a lack of bowel move...
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 care plan interventions for gastrointestinal reflux disease, tremors, and the use of an antidepressant for 1 of 5 residents reviewed. (Resi...
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** 2. During an interview with Resident 11 on 10/4/2023 at 9:04 A.M., Resident 11 indicated she does not have care plan meetings, a...
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 a resident received care planned interventions during periods of constipation for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for bowel management (Re...
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to follow through with physician recommendations for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for urinary tract infections. (Resident 11)
Finding includes:
D...
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, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment was stored properly for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for oxygen therapy. (Resident 182)
Finding inclu...
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, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the physician responded timely to pharmacy recommendations for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for medication use. (Resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food items in the freezer were dated/labeled with used by dates, dispose of expired foods, and failed to ensure the dis...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2022
1 deficiency
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 ensure PPE was worn and hand hygiene performed during medication pass for 1 of 1 observations.
Findings include:
During an initial medicatio...
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.
- • 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • 69% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Hickory Creek At Peru's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns HICKORY CREEK AT PERU 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 Hickory Creek At Peru Staffed?
CMS rates HICKORY CREEK AT PERU's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 69%, which is 23 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 71%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Hickory Creek At Peru?
State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at HICKORY CREEK AT PERU during 2022 to 2024. These included: 16 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Hickory Creek At Peru?
HICKORY CREEK AT PERU 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 24 residents (about 67% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in PERU, Indiana.
How Does Hickory Creek At Peru Compare to Other Indiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Indiana, HICKORY CREEK AT PERU's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (69%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Hickory Creek At Peru?
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 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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Hickory Creek At Peru Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, HICKORY CREEK AT PERU 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 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Peru Stick Around?
Staff turnover at HICKORY CREEK AT PERU is high. At 69%, the facility is 23 percentage points above the Indiana average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 71%. 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 Hickory Creek At Peru Ever Fined?
HICKORY CREEK AT PERU 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 Peru on Any Federal Watch List?
HICKORY CREEK AT PERU 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.