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 Waters Of Greencastle, The during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident who was cognitively intact and receiving hospice care was required by staff to eat all meals in the dining room, despite repeatedly expressing a preference to eat in his room. The resident, who had a history of anxiety and depression, was able to feed himself with some assistance and understood the risks associated with his diet. Staff cited facility policy and safety concerns as reasons for not honoring his choice, resulting in frequent meal refusals and distress for the resident. The facility's policy emphasized resident rights to self-determination, but this was not upheld in practice.
A resident with vascular dementia and chronic pain syndrome experienced significant weight changes, but the facility failed to perform a reweight as required by their policy. Despite documented weight loss and gain, and recommendations for nutritional interventions, the facility did not adhere to its policy of reweighing residents after significant weight changes.
A resident with Alzheimer's disease had two PRN orders for acetaminophen, risking overdose. A pharmacy recommendation to discontinue one order was initially ignored, leading to a deficiency. The issue was only addressed after a second recommendation, with the physician discontinuing the 500 mg tablets.
The facility failed to ensure proper sanitation of kitchen equipment and drinking glasses, with a white cloudy substance observed on pitchers and glasses. Residents reported the issue, and the Dietary Manager acknowledged lime deposits as the cause. Additionally, an Activity Aide was observed handling snacks with bare hands, contrary to the facility's food safety policy. A CNA confirmed that gloves should be used when serving food.
Failure to Honor Resident's Meal Location Preference
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to honor a resident's expressed preference to eat meals in his room rather than in the dining room. During a wound care observation, the resident stated he would rather eat in his room, but staff required him to eat in the dining room for all meals. The Assistant Director of Nursing acknowledged the resident's preference but did not accommodate it. The resident was cognitively intact, able to feed himself with some assistance, and receiving hospice care. His care plan included interventions to offer him choices and assist with meal setup as needed. The clinical record and interviews revealed that the resident had a history of anxiety, depression, and physical limitations, but no upper extremity impairment. A speech therapy summary recommended close supervision during meals and upright posture, but did not specify a requirement for dining room meals. The resident's diet was changed from pureed to regular with thin liquids at his request, after being educated about aspiration risks. Despite understanding the risks, the resident consistently expressed his desire to eat in his room, which was supported by his spouse and documented by the hospice nurse case manager. Staff interviews indicated that it was facility policy for residents requiring assistance to eat in the dining room, citing safety concerns. The Director of Nursing and Administrator both stated that the resident was encouraged or required to eat in the dining room, and noted his resistance, especially when family was present. Meal intake records showed the resident frequently refused meals, particularly breakfast, due to not wanting to go to the dining room. The facility's own policy emphasized residents' rights to self-determination and choice, but these were not honored in this case.
Failure to Reweigh Resident After Significant Weight Change
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to complete a reweight for a resident, identified as Resident 47, who experienced a significant weight change. Resident 47's medical history included vascular dementia, chronic pain syndrome, and a need for assistance with personal care. A physician's order from January 2022 indicated a general diet with regular texture and thin liquids. The resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment in August 2024 documented severe cognitive deficits and significant weight fluctuations, both loss and gain, over a period of months. Despite these documented changes, the facility did not perform a reweight after a notable weight loss from 122.5 pounds in June 2024 to 111.5 pounds in July 2024, which represented an 8.98% decrease. Progress notes from July 2024 indicated that the resident was monitored for significant weight loss, with recommendations for house shakes and weekly weights. However, these notes lacked documentation of any reweight being completed. Interviews with Registered Nurses (RN) 7 and 8 revealed that staff were expected to reweigh residents immediately upon discovering significant weight discrepancies. The Director of Nursing (DON) provided a policy document from April 2017, which stated that a reweight should be obtained and recorded for all significant weight changes. Despite these guidelines, the facility did not adhere to its policy, resulting in the deficiency.
Failure to Address Pharmacy Recommendation for PRN Medication
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to address a pharmacy recommendation in a timely manner for a resident with Alzheimer's disease. The resident's record indicated two PRN orders for acetaminophen, which posed a risk of overdose. The pharmacy initially recommended discontinuing one of the orders on 2/12/24, but this recommendation was not addressed by the Director of Nursing or the physician at that time. The lack of action was confirmed during an interview with the Administrator, who acknowledged that the recommendation should have been addressed promptly. A second pharmacy recommendation was issued on 6/9/24, reiterating the need to discontinue one of the acetaminophen orders. This time, the physician agreed with the recommendation and ordered the discontinuation of the 500 mg acetaminophen tablets on 6/18/24. The facility's policy required that each recommendation be acted upon, with the Director of Nursing and the attending physician responsible for documenting their review and response. However, the initial failure to address the recommendation led to a deficiency in the resident's drug regimen management.
Sanitation and Food Handling Deficiencies
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain adequate sanitation standards in the kitchen and during snack distribution. During a kitchen tour, a thick white cloudy substance was observed on the inside surface of a 2-gallon pitcher used for making beverages for residents. This substance was also noted on the sink and faucet base in the kitchen. Multiple residents reported noticing a white cloudy substance on the drinking glasses, which was attributed to lime deposits. The Dietary Manager acknowledged the issue and mentioned attempts to address it, including checking salt levels, using bleach, and a de-liming solution. However, the problem persisted due to insufficient staff to scrub each cup by hand. The Administrator confirmed that a service man inspected the dishwasher, but no equipment concerns were identified. Additionally, during a random snack distribution observation, an Activity Aide was seen removing oatmeal cream pies from their packaging with bare hands and handing them to residents without using gloves or hand sanitizer. This practice was contrary to the facility's policy on food safety and sanitation, which requires the use of gloves to avoid bare-hand contact with ready-to-eat food. A CNA confirmed that staff should not touch food with bare hands, highlighting a lapse in adherence to the facility's food handling protocols.
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 56 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — 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 Greencastle
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hickory Creek At Sunset | 1.3 mi | — | 7 | 0 |
| Mill Pond Health Campus | 1.4 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Asbury Towers Health Care Center | 1.8 mi | — | 10 | 0 |
| Aperion Care Summerfield | 8.1 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Cloverleaf Of Knightsville | 14.4 mi | — | 6 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Waters Of Greencastle, The.
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.