Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
The next survey window likely opens around November 2026
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Arlington Place Health Campus during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to ensure dietary staff with facial hair wore beard coverings, as observed during a kitchen inspection. A staff member was seen preparing lunch without a beard covering, contrary to the facility's policy requiring facial hair restraints in food production areas. This deficiency could potentially affect all 42 residents receiving food prepared in the kitchen.
The facility failed to maintain infection control during medication administration for three residents, as an LPN did not perform hand hygiene at critical points. Additionally, a CRCA did not follow enhanced barrier precautions for a resident with a feeding tube, failing to wear a gown during high-contact care, despite facility policy and signage indicating the requirement.
A resident was transferred to a hospital due to a medical condition, but the facility failed to inform him and the State Ombudsman of a subsequent discharge due to payment issues. The resident was unaware of the discharge until his belongings were brought to the hospital. The facility did not adhere to its policy requiring a 30-day notice for non-emergency discharges, leading to a deficiency.
The facility failed to monitor urinary output and symptoms of urinary tract infections for two residents with catheters. Resident C had inconsistent documentation of urinary output and delayed follow-up after blood was noted in urine, leading to hospital discharge for a UTI. Resident E's records lacked documentation of catheter care and urinary output after returning from a hospital stay. Staff interviews confirmed that output should be measured in milliliters, but this was not consistently done, violating the facility's catheter care procedures.
Failure to Ensure Beard Coverings in Kitchen
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that dietary staff with facial hair wore beard coverings, as observed during a kitchen inspection. On October 15, 2024, at 11:44 a.m., a staff member with facial hair on his lip and chin was seen preparing lunch without a beard covering. This observation was made during a tour of the kitchen with the Director of Food Services. During an interview conducted shortly after, the Director confirmed that the staff member should have been wearing a beard covering. The facility's policy, provided by the Administrator on October 17, 2024, mandates that beard and mustache hair must be covered in kitchen food product areas, and facial hair restraints are required in any production area. This deficiency has the potential to affect all 42 residents receiving food prepared in the kitchen.
Infection Control Deficiencies in Medication Administration and Barrier Precautions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain proper infection control practices during medication administration for three out of four residents observed. An LPN was observed preparing and administering medications without performing hand hygiene at critical points. For Resident 31, the LPN touched various items and unwrapped a straw with bare hands before administering medication, without washing hands prior to the administration. For Resident 9, the LPN picked up a dropped pill from the floor with bare hands, donned gloves without hand hygiene, and continued medication preparation and administration without washing hands at necessary intervals. Similarly, for Resident 91, the LPN did not perform hand hygiene before donning gloves to administer insulin. Additionally, the facility did not adhere to enhanced barrier precautions for a resident requiring such measures. Resident 2, who had a feeding tube and required enhanced barrier precautions during high-contact care, was not provided care in accordance with these precautions. A CRCA was observed providing care without wearing a gown, despite the presence of a sign indicating the need for enhanced barrier precautions and available gowns in the room. The facility's policy required the use of gowns and gloves during high-contact care activities, which was not followed in this instance.
Failure to Inform Resident and Ombudsman of Discharge Due to Payment Issues
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly inform a resident and the State Ombudsman Agency about a facility-initiated discharge due to payment coverage issues. Resident C, who had been residing in the facility with diagnoses including pressure ulcers, was transferred to an acute care hospital due to a change in medical condition. The facility issued a Notice of Transfer or Discharge on the day of the transfer, citing the need to meet the resident's welfare as the reason. However, there was no documentation of a subsequent notice regarding the discharge due to non-payment or insurance coverage issues. Interviews revealed that Resident C was unaware of the discharge until the facility's Administrator and Director of Nursing brought his belongings to the hospital and informed him of the discharge. The State Ombudsman was also not informed of the discharge until after the fact. The facility's policy requires a 30-day notice for non-emergency discharges, which was not adhered to in this case. The facility's Bed Hold Policy was also not properly communicated to Resident C, who was a private pay resident at the time of discharge. The facility's failure to provide timely and adequate notice of the discharge, as well as the lack of documentation and communication regarding the insurance coverage issue, led to the deficiency. The facility's actions were not in compliance with federal regulations that require proper notification and documentation for resident transfers and discharges.
Failure to Monitor Urinary Output and Symptoms in Residents with Catheters
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately monitor urinary output and symptoms of urinary tract infections for residents with urinary catheters, specifically for Resident C and Resident E. Resident C had a urinary catheter due to a neurogenic bladder and a stage 4 wound, with a care plan in place to monitor for complications such as urinary tract infections and to record urinary output. Despite a physician's order to monitor output every shift, the clinical record showed inconsistent documentation of urinary output, with vague terms like 'medium' and 'large' used instead of precise measurements. Additionally, after blood was noted in Resident C's urine, there was a lack of follow-up documentation until two days later when a nurse practitioner ordered a urinalysis, and Resident C was subsequently discharged to a hospital for a urinary tract infection. Resident E, who also had a neurogenic bladder and an indwelling urinary catheter, had a similar care plan to monitor urinary output and observe for complications. However, the facility's records showed that after Resident E returned from a hospital stay, there was no documentation of catheter care or urinary output for several days. Interviews with facility staff confirmed that urinary output should be measured in milliliters each shift, but this was not consistently done, as evidenced by the lack of documentation in the Treatment Administration Record (TAR). The facility's failure to maintain accurate records and monitor urinary output and symptoms of urinary tract infections for residents with catheters was further highlighted by the facility's own Suprapubic Catheter Care Standard Operating Procedure. This procedure outlined the need to observe urine levels, check for unusual appearances, and maintain accurate records of daily output, which were not adhered to in the cases of Resident C and Resident E. The deficiency was related to a complaint investigation, indicating a systemic issue in the facility's catheter care practices.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 817 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 8 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Indianapolis
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Miller's Merry Manor | 0.1 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Community Nursing And Rehabilitation Center | 0.5 mi | — | 17 | 0 |
| Rosewalk Village | 1.1 mi | — | 10 | 1 |
| Brickyard Healthcare - Brookview Care Center | 1.3 mi | — | 10 | 1 |
| Wildwood Healthcare Center | 1.3 mi | — | 9 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Arlington Place Health Campus.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.