HICKORY CREEK AT ROCHESTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Hickory Creek at Rochester has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranked #354 of 505 facilities in Indiana, they are in the bottom half, but they do rank #1 out of 2 in Fulton County, meaning only one other local option is available. The facility is showing an improving trend, with issues decreasing from 6 in 2024 to 5 in 2025, but it still has a concerning staffing turnover rate of 60%, which is higher than the state average. Despite having good RN coverage, the facility has faced serious issues, such as failing to properly treat a resident's pressure ulcer, leading to severe complications, and not effectively managing a resident's pain from a leg fracture for 14 days. Additionally, the facility has incurred $18,046 in fines, which is higher than 96% of Indiana facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance problems.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Indiana
- #354/505
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $18,046 in fines. Lower than most Indiana facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 67 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
- 29 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
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Indiana average (3.1)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
13pts above Indiana avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
12 points above Indiana average of 48%
The Ugly 29 deficiencies on record
May 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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure safety measures were followed to prevent a resident's fall while riding in the facility bus for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for unusual...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2025
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
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of misappropriation of resident property was 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
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
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 medication destruction form was completed for a resident tha...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2025
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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Someone could have died · 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 a resident received the necessary treatment and...
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
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 interview and record review, the facility failed ensure a resident's responsible party was notified in a timely manner ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide a transfer/discharge form for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalizations. (Residents 11 & 1)
Findings include:
1. A record revi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide the bed hold policy for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for hospitalizations. (Residents 11 & 1)
Findings include:
1. A record review for...
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 properly store a Bi-Pap (bi-level positive airway pressure) mask for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for oxygen/respiratory equipmen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure performance evaluations were completed annually for 4 of 4 employee files reviewed. (CNA 3, CNA 4, CNA 7 & CNA 8)
Findings include:
1...
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
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control practices were implemented related to Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for 1 of 4 residents ...
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 kitchen equipment were in good working condition in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed.
Finding includes:
During a kitchen tour wi...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to effectively treat a resident's pain for 14 days and failed to notify the physician of the residents' continued complaint of pain and after ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
2 deficiencies
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 ensure medications were labeled, dated when opened, and failed to provide a clean medication cart for 1 of 1 medication carts ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to have 8 consecutive hours of RN coverage in the facility. This deficient practice affected 31 of 31 Residents who resided in the facility.
F...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2021
15 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the local Ombudsman of a discharged resident for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for discharge. (Resident 29)
A record review for Resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to submit a Level II PASARR evaluation as indicated for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for PASARR. (Resident 18)
Finding includes:
Res...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure base line care plans were implemented on re-admission for a ...
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** 2. A clinical record review was completed on 11/18/2021 at 09:00 A.M. Resident 11's diagnoses included, but were not limited to:...
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to revised care plans for weight loss and a skin issues for 3 of 17 re...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow physician order for residents' skin to be asses...
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
2. On 11/17/21 at 11:04 a.m., Resident 1 was observed with her husband in a wheelchair outside of the dining room Her legs were not elevated and no protective boots were in place.
Interview with CNA 4...
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 ensure supervision of residents to prevent the use of ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident had an appropriate diagnosis for the...
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 implement new interventions to prevent further weight loss and obta...
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 posting of cautionary and safety signs indicating the use of oxygen; and provide necessary respiratory care and service...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' pain levels were monitored and as needed pain medication was documented appropriately for 2 of 2 residents o...
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 ensure a resident's psychotropic medication was not increased without adequate indication/documentation for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for u...
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, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper labeling and dating of leftover foods and dairy products in the refrigerator, discarding dairy products that wer...
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 record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control practices were implemented related to not bagging nebulizer aresol masks, not keeping catheter...
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?"
- "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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 29 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $18,046 in fines. Above average for Indiana. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade F (26/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Hickory Creek At Rochester's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns HICKORY CREEK AT ROCHESTER an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Hickory Creek At Rochester Staffed?
CMS rates HICKORY CREEK AT ROCHESTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 13 percentage points above the Indiana average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Hickory Creek At Rochester?
State health inspectors documented 29 deficiencies at HICKORY CREEK AT ROCHESTER during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 27 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 Hickory Creek At Rochester?
HICKORY CREEK AT ROCHESTER is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by AMERICAN SENIOR COMMUNITIES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 36 certified beds and approximately 25 residents (about 69% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in ROCHESTER, Indiana.
How Does Hickory Creek At Rochester Compare to Other Indiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Indiana, HICKORY CREEK AT ROCHESTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (60%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Hickory Creek At Rochester?
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?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Hickory Creek At Rochester Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, HICKORY CREEK AT ROCHESTER 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 2-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 Hickory Creek At Rochester Stick Around?
Staff turnover at HICKORY CREEK AT ROCHESTER is high. At 60%, the facility is 13 percentage points above the Indiana average of 46%. 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 Rochester Ever Fined?
HICKORY CREEK AT ROCHESTER has been fined $18,046 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Indiana average of $33,259. 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 Hickory Creek At Rochester on Any Federal Watch List?
HICKORY CREEK AT ROCHESTER 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.