WESTMINSTER VILLAGE - WEST LAFAYETTE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Westminster Village in West Lafayette, Indiana, has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families, but not the best option available. It ranks #207 out of 505 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, and #6 out of 11 in Tippecanoe County, meaning there are only a few local facilities that perform better. However, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, as the number of issues reported increased from 5 in 2024 to 6 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a 5/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 38%, which is lower than the state average, suggesting that staff are experienced and familiar with residents. There have been no fines reported, which is a positive sign, but the RN coverage is only average. Some concerning findings include a failure to properly document monitoring for side effects of medications for several residents and inadequate wound care documentation, which could potentially lead to health risks. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and a lack of fines, the increase in issues and specific care deficiencies are important factors to consider.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Indiana
- #207/505
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 38% 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 ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 59 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Indiana. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (38%)
10 points below Indiana average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Indiana avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record
Feb 2025
6 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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed the physician's ordered medication parameters were followed for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for quality of care. (Resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were followed and therapy evaluations were completed in a timely manner for 2 of 4 residents review ...
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
2. The clinical record for Resident C was reviewed on 2/21/25 at 4:33 p.m. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Alzheimer's disease, dementia with psychotic disturbance, delirium due to kn...
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the pharmacy provided gradual dose reduction (GDR) requests to reduce or discontinue psychotropic medications for 2 of 5 residents r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations were provided for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations. (Resident B)
Findings include...
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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure behavior and side effect monitoring for psychotropic medications, wound care treatments, and catheter care were documented for 4 of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
5 deficiencies
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received mouth care twice daily for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL) care. (Resident 37)
F...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0919
(Tag F0919)
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 all areas of the wireless call system were func...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure items were not stored on the floor in resident rooms, carpet squares edges were not peeling, and the walls were free of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
4. During an observation, on 1/23/24 at 12:31 p.m., Resident 25 was observed, in her wheelchair, wearing open toe sandals with a small bandage on her left great toe.
During an observation, on 1/26/24 ...
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 posted nurse staffing was up to date and had the correct hours of staff nurses for 2 of 2 posted nurse staffing lists. ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from abuse when a staff member did not follow the facility's abuse policy or the employee handbook ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. The record for Resident 12 was reviewed on 10/31/22 at 10:59 a.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Parkinson's disease (a disorder affecting movement), hypertension, dementia without be...
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident needing assistance with ADL's (activity of daily living) was provided the scheduled showers for 2 of 2 resid...
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 obtain complete physician's orders for the use of oxygen for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for oxygen. (Residents 33 and 214)
Find...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
2. The record for Resident 45 was reviewed on 10/28/22 at 4:29 p.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, history of urinary tract infections (UTI), Alzheimer's disease, dementia and cystocele ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure recipes were followed when staff prepared altered diets for 1 of 1 staff member observed preparing puree foods. (Chef 8...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
6. The record for Resident 33 was reviewed on 11/01/22 at 12:23 p.m. Diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, adult failure to thrive, depression, dementia, and restl...
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 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.
- • 38% turnover. Below Indiana's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Westminster Village - West Lafayette's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns WESTMINSTER VILLAGE - WEST LAFAYETTE an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Indiana, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Westminster Village - West Lafayette Staffed?
CMS rates WESTMINSTER VILLAGE - WEST LAFAYETTE's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 38%, compared to the Indiana average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Westminster Village - West Lafayette?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at WESTMINSTER VILLAGE - WEST LAFAYETTE during 2022 to 2025. These included: 17 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Westminster Village - West Lafayette?
WESTMINSTER VILLAGE - WEST LAFAYETTE 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 72 certified beds and approximately 59 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WEST LAFAYETTE, Indiana.
How Does Westminster Village - West Lafayette Compare to Other Indiana Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Indiana, WESTMINSTER VILLAGE - WEST LAFAYETTE's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (38%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Westminster Village - West Lafayette?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"
Is Westminster Village - West Lafayette Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, WESTMINSTER VILLAGE - WEST LAFAYETTE 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 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Westminster Village - West Lafayette Stick Around?
WESTMINSTER VILLAGE - WEST LAFAYETTE has a staff turnover rate of 38%, 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 Westminster Village - West Lafayette Ever Fined?
WESTMINSTER VILLAGE - WEST LAFAYETTE 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 Westminster Village - West Lafayette on Any Federal Watch List?
WESTMINSTER VILLAGE - WEST LAFAYETTE 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.