Deficiency Index

Wellington Parc of Owensboro

Owensboro, Kentucky · CCN 185436

10 surveys since 2011, and no finding has been recorded at harm level.

Data as of , released by CMS on October 8, 2026. Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog.

Citations on record
41
Surveys
10
Harm or worse
0
Immediate jeopardy
0
The record, 2011–2026
’11’15’20’25’26
No harm recordedHarm or worseNot surveyed
Harm or worseNone

No finding on record has been cited at harm level or above.

Beyond CMS’s monthly file7/10

Older surveys no longer in CMS’s monthly file or on Care Compare. They are shown here.

The facility

Certified beds
80
Ownership
For profit - Limited Liability company
Chain
Independent
County
Daviess
Medicare-certified since
1997

CMS ratings

Overall
4
Health inspection
4
Staffing
2
Quality measures
3

CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.

Compared with similar facilities

Not shown for this facility: too few citations in window (n=2, floor 20).

Last survey on record

Feb 6, 2026

276 days ago.

Counts surveys with at least one finding. A clean survey leaves no record here, so the real gap may be shorter.

Staffing

MeasureThis facilityPeer median
Nurse hours per resident day3.683.61
Registered-nurse hours per resident day0.60—

As reported by the facility to CMS, beside the peer-group median.

Enforcement

No fines, payment denials or special-focus designation on the current CMS record.

Severity of recent findings

Citations by CMS scope and severity. Rows are harm level, columns are how widespread the finding was.
SeverityIsolatedPatternWidespread
Immediate jeopardyJ—K—L—
Actual harmG—H—I—
No harm, potential for more than minimalD583.3%E—F116.7%
No harm, potential for minimalA—B—C—
CMS’s current file: 6 of the 41 citations on record.

In the surveyor’s words

From the most serious findings on record at Wellington Parc of Owensboro, in the surveyor’s own words.

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF761Feb 6, 2026

    Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and/or biologicals used in the facility were stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles. Medications were found loose, without identification as to who they belonged and/or what they were. This failure affected one (1) of two (2) medication carts observed out of a total of three carts.The findings include:Review of facility policy, titled Labeling of Medication, with a reviewed date of 01/27/2025, revealed that medication is to be labeled in order to facilitate safe administration of medications. […]

  • No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedF609Oct 11, 2024

    Based on interview, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were immediately reported to the State Survey Agency and other officials (Department for Community Based Services) in accordance with state law for three (Resident (R) 35, R17 and R 32) of 17 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility failed to report allegations of abuse to the State Survey Agency and the Department for Community Based Services (DCBS) when R31 hit and squeezed R32's ankle, when R65 smacked R17 with a flyswatter and when R65 hit R35 on the head. […]

Read 20 findings in full →The most serious and the most recent: 20 of 41 on record.

Every survey on record

FindingsAt actual harm or above

  • Feb 6, 2026Standard1 finding
  • Oct 11, 2024Standard1 finding
  • Dec 11, 2019Standard4 findings
  • Sep 13, 2018Standard9 findings
  • Jul 21, 2016Standard7 findings
  • Jul 24, 2015Standard3 findings
  • Jun 6, 2014Standard1 finding
  • Jun 5, 2013—6 findings
Show the 2 earlier surveys
  • Aug 17, 2012—5 findings
  • May 24, 2011—4 findings

Surveys that found no deficiencies are not in CMS’s files and do not appear here.

Comparable facilities

The nearest facilities to this one in the same peer group, by weighted findings.

Deficiency Index is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or approved by CMS, Medicare, or any government agency. About this data · Report a correction