WATERS OF WAKARUSA SKILLED NURSING FACILITY, THE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Waters of Wakarusa Skilled Nursing Facility has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks #402 out of 505 facilities in Indiana, placing it in the bottom half, and #10 out of 12 in Elkhart County, meaning only two local options are worse. Unfortunately, the facility’s performance is worsening, with issues increasing from 5 in 2024 to 18 in 2025. Staffing is rated at 2 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 56%, which is average but suggests some instability. There are concerning fines totaling $14,069, higher than 83% of Indiana facilities, indicating possible compliance issues. While the facility has good RN coverage, exceeding that of 75% of Indiana facilities, there have been critical incidents, such as a resident being discharged unsafely without proper arrangements, which left them feeling hopeless. Additionally, food safety practices are lacking, with outdated and improperly stored food observed in the kitchen, posing potential risks to residents' health. Overall, families should weigh these significant concerns against any strengths when considering this nursing home for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Indiana
- #402/505
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $14,069 in fines. Higher than 59% of Indiana facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 44 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Indiana. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 30 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
Below Indiana average (3.1)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
10pts 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
8 points above Indiana average of 48%
The Ugly 30 deficiencies on record
Mar 2025
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's choice of Advance Directive was documented consistently in the medical record and staff were aware of the resident's ch...
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 F0691
(Tag F0691)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide urostomy care and required urostomy supplies for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for urinary devices. (Resident B)
Finding includes:
A re...
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 provide non-invasive mechanical ventilation equipment for 1 of 3 residents and failed to properly store respiratory treatment ...
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 assess a dialysis fistula for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for dialysis. (Resident 24)
Findings include:
A record review for Resident 24 was c...
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 attempt a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for a resident's whose last GDR was completed on 11/17/2023, for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for unnec...
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 medications were stored appropriately, had resi...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to obtain a physician ordered lab for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for la...
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. During an interview, on 3/10/2025 at 11:09 A.M., Resident 30 indicated she had very dry skin.
A record review for Resident 30...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure recipes were followed when preparing pureed meals. This deficient practice had the opportunity to affect 4 of 4 residents who received...
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
5. On 3/14/2025 at 1:06 P.M., a review of the infection log book indicated the last documentation for tracking and trending resident infections had been completed in December 2024. The book lacked the...
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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to store food under sanitary conditions related to foods not tightly sealed and outdated foods, for 1 of 1 kitchen observed. Thi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2025
7 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
Transfer Requirements
(Tag F0622)
Someone could have died · 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 notice of discharge was provided in writing, discharge pla...
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
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
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 notice of discharge was provided, in writing, prior to a f...
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 F0624
(Tag F0624)
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 preparation and orientation for a resident's discharge was c...
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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
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 dependent residents had received bathing opport...
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
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
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 tube feedings were documented as ordered by the...
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure hot food and cold liquids were served and maintained in a sanitary and safe manner related to staff touching food and o...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
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 nurse staffing information was posted for the residents and their families to review. This had the ability to affect al...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
4 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to notify the Physician of weight gain per the parameters in the physician orders, for 1 of 1 reviewed for edema. (Resident 60)
...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide necessary ADL (activities of daily living) services related to nail care, facial hair removal, and showers, for 2 of ...
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to supervise a resident with severe cognitive deficits and wandering behaviors to prevent the resident from exiting the facility ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0712
(Tag F0712)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide medical doctor visits every 60 days as required, for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for nutrition. (Resident 21)
Finding includes:
A re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 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 F0660
(Tag F0660)
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 develop a comprehensive discharge care plan for 2 of 3 residents re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0638
(Tag F0638)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed in the required time frame for 2 of 2 residents reviewed. (Residents 14 ...
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 observations, interviews, and clinical record review the facility failed to revise a care plan following a fall for 1 o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide a restorative therapy program for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for rehabilitation. (Resident 35)
Finding includes:
A clinical record r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide individualized activities for a severely cognitively impaired resident for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for activities. ...
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 observations, interviews, and clinical record review, the facility failed to obtain orders for respiratory care for 1 out of 3 residents reviewed (Resident 87)
During an observation and inter...
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, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure side effects were monitored, behaviors were documented, new behavior assessments and follow up assessments were complet...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to develop person-centered care plans for 4 of 28 residents whose care plans were reviewed (Residents 40, 60, 87, and 37.)
Findi...
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). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 30 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $14,069 in fines. Above average for Indiana. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade F (31/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Waters Of Wakarusa Skilled Nursing Facility, The's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns WATERS OF WAKARUSA SKILLED NURSING FACILITY, THE 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 Waters Of Wakarusa Skilled Nursing Facility, The Staffed?
CMS rates WATERS OF WAKARUSA SKILLED NURSING FACILITY, THE's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 56%, which is 10 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 Waters Of Wakarusa Skilled Nursing Facility, The?
State health inspectors documented 30 deficiencies at WATERS OF WAKARUSA SKILLED NURSING FACILITY, THE during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 28 with potential for harm, and 1 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 Waters Of Wakarusa Skilled Nursing Facility, The?
WATERS OF WAKARUSA SKILLED NURSING FACILITY, 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 133 certified beds and approximately 79 residents (about 59% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in WAKARUSA, Indiana.
How Does Waters Of Wakarusa Skilled Nursing Facility, The Compare to Other Indiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Indiana, WATERS OF WAKARUSA SKILLED NURSING FACILITY, THE's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (56%) is significantly higher than 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 Wakarusa Skilled Nursing Facility, The?
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 Waters Of Wakarusa Skilled Nursing Facility, The Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, WATERS OF WAKARUSA SKILLED NURSING FACILITY, THE 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 Waters Of Wakarusa Skilled Nursing Facility, The Stick Around?
Staff turnover at WATERS OF WAKARUSA SKILLED NURSING FACILITY, THE is high. At 56%, the facility is 10 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 Waters Of Wakarusa Skilled Nursing Facility, The Ever Fined?
WATERS OF WAKARUSA SKILLED NURSING FACILITY, THE has been fined $14,069 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Indiana average of $33,220. 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 Waters Of Wakarusa Skilled Nursing Facility, The on Any Federal Watch List?
WATERS OF WAKARUSA SKILLED NURSING FACILITY, 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.