WATERS OF PRINCETON, THE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Waters of Princeton has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor reputation among nursing homes. It ranks #496 out of 505 facilities in Indiana, placing it in the bottom half statewide and #4 out of 4 in Gibson County, meaning only one local option is worse. Although the facility is trending toward improvement, with issues decreasing from 18 in 2024 to 3 in 2025, it still reported 39 total issues, including serious incidents where a resident fell and suffered a major injury due to lack of supervision, as well as others developing pressure injuries. Staffing is a bit of a mixed bag; while the turnover rate is at 45%, which is slightly below Indiana's average, the staffing rating is poor at just 1 out of 5 stars. On a positive note, the facility has not incurred any fines, and while RN coverage is average, it’s crucial to note that the serious incidents highlight ongoing risks to resident safety.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Indiana
- #496/505
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 45% turnover. Near Indiana's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Indiana facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 28 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Indiana. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 39 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (45%)
3 points below Indiana average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Indiana average (3.1)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Near Indiana avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 39 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure drug records were in order and an account of all drugs were maintained for 2 of 2 nursing units reviewed. The narcotic...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 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
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
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 physician orders were followed for 1 of 3 resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
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 notify the physician and resident representative of a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
16 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician consultation was provided before tre...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
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' MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessment's were complete...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On 10/17/24 at 12:54 P.M., Resident 30's clinical record was reviewed. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, dementia ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop care plans for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for communication....
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. On 10/21/24 at 11:54 A.M., Resident 36's clinical record was reviewed. The diagnoses included Sepsis and End Stage Renal Dise...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
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 practitioner's diagnostic practices met professional standar...
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 clinical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure care consistent with professional standards of practice were received to prevent pressure ulcers from progressing by admini...
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 diet recommendations were followed in 1 of 3 residents revie...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a pharmacy recommendation was followed for 1 of 5 residents ...
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 implement infection prevention measures by following physician orders for enhanced barrier precautions for 1 of 1 residents o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered according to physician's orders and professional standard for 4 of 4 residents observed ...
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 ensure medications were properly dated and labeled, failed to keep medications refrigerated until opening, and failed to destr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that food was served at palatable temperatures for 1 of 1 trays tested for temperature. (200-hall)
Finding includes:
O...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was correctly prepared for 4 of 4 residents who received puree altered diets.
Finding includes:
On 10/17/24 at 1...
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 ensure food was prepared under sanitary conditions during 3 of 3 kitchen observations and 1 of 1 dining observations. Staff d...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. On 10/17/24 at 2:03 P.M., Resident 15's clinical record was reviewed. The most recent Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assess...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop care plans for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for wounds. A care plan was not developed after a resident returned from the hospital with...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 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 F0659
(Tag F0659)
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 physician orders were followed for 1 of 3 residents reviewed...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
9 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safety or supervision of a resident for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for falls resulting in major injury. This deficient ...
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 attempt to obtain labs, indicate clinical signs of a UTI (urinary tract infection), or ensure the proper antibiotic was prescribed prior to...
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care is provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0940
(Tag F0940)
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 that staff received sufficient training to ensure resident s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 9. On 8/23/23 at 9:31 A.M., Resident 20's clinical record was reviewed. Resident 20 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included, ...
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 ensure that all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored under proper temperature controls for 1 of 2 medicatio...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interviews and record review the facility failed to store, prepare and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service for 1 of 2 kitchen observations. Food...
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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the complete and accurate staffing records were posted for 6 of 6 days reviewed during the survey (8/21/23, 8/22/23, 8/...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2021
9 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents, who admitted with no pressure ulcer...
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
**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 care plan and follow the phys...
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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide necessary respiratory care and services for 1...
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 record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure necessary care and services were provided for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for dialysis. A resident did not have an order to check the...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0728
(Tag F0728)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure an individual working as a certified nursing a...
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 ensure that medications were labeled and outdated medications were disposed of properly for 1 of 2 medication carts and 1 of ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served in a san...
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**
7. On 9/7/21 at 11:45 a.m., LPN 1 was observed to enter a Yellow TBP (transmission based precaution) room carrying a glass of o...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the daily staffing posted the number of nursing staff by category (RN, LPN, and CNA) providing direct care to resident...
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 fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Indiana facilities.
- • 45% turnover. Below Indiana's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 39 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade F (30/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Waters Of Princeton, The's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns WATERS OF PRINCETON, THE an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Indiana, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Waters Of Princeton, The Staffed?
CMS rates WATERS OF PRINCETON, THE's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 45%, compared to the Indiana average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Waters Of Princeton, The?
State health inspectors documented 39 deficiencies at WATERS OF PRINCETON, THE during 2021 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm, 35 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Waters Of Princeton, The?
WATERS OF PRINCETON, THE 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 INFINITY HEALTHCARE CONSULTING, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 95 certified beds and approximately 58 residents (about 61% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in PRINCETON, Indiana.
How Does Waters Of Princeton, The Compare to Other Indiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Indiana, WATERS OF PRINCETON, THE's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (45%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Waters Of Princeton, The?
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 Waters Of Princeton, The Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, WATERS OF PRINCETON, THE 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 1-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 Waters Of Princeton, The Stick Around?
WATERS OF PRINCETON, THE has a staff turnover rate of 45%, 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 Waters Of Princeton, The Ever Fined?
WATERS OF PRINCETON, THE 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 Waters Of Princeton, The on Any Federal Watch List?
WATERS OF PRINCETON, THE 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.