Hutsonwood at Brazil

Name: Hutsonwood at Brazil
Address: 501 S MURPHY AVE, Brazil, IN, 47834, US
Telephone: 8124462636

501 S Murphy Ave, Brazil, IN 47834 · Clay County · 86 certified beds · avg 74 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1994

1/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

Fines, last 3 years

3.30

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jan 12, 2026 · F-0688

The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline.

Why it matters: Without this care, residents can develop stiff, contracted joints and lose the ability to move on their own.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Feb 13, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (30)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

Date	Severity	What the facility was cited for
May 11, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint
Jan 12, 2026	▲ G · Actual harm, one-off	The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline.
Jan 12, 2026	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Jan 12, 2026	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Jan 12, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential.
Jan 12, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Jan 12, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections.
Jan 12, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint
Jan 12, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems.
Jan 12, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason.
Jan 12, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time.
Jan 12, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Jan 12, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Aug 14, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint
Feb 12, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · from a complaint
Feb 12, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · from a complaint
Oct 22, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.
Oct 22, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups.
Oct 22, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits.
Oct 22, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time.
Oct 22, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Oct 22, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Oct 22, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Oct 22, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Aug 27, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint
Sep 22, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Sep 22, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Sep 22, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems.
Sep 22, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time.
Sep 22, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (8 → 12).

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2023	5	0	E
2024	9	0	D
2025	3	0	D
2026	13	1	G ▲

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

Measure	This facility	Indiana avg	U.S. avg	Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)	3.30	3.42	3.95	top 48% in Indiana; bottom 27% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.62	0.62	0.69	top 40% in Indiana; top 45% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	2.97	3.01	3.50	top 42% in Indiana; bottom 29% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.46	0.47	0.48	top 40% in Indiana; top 39% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	50.0	45.9	45.8	bottom 37% in Indiana; bottom 38% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	50.0	40.4	42.9	bottom 35% in Indiana; bottom 39% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.16, RN 0.59, weekend 2.84. Staffing rating: 2/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5

Who owns this facility

Non profit - Corporation

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Putnam County Hospital	Organization	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	100%	06/01/2015
Barach, Andrea	Individual	Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	09/19/2025
Berry, Manoj	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	04/25/2022
Berry, Manoj	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	04/25/2022
Bray, Arnold	Individual	Managing Control - Governing Body	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2012
Bray, Arnold	Individual	Trustee of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2012
Brazil Facility Company LLC	Organization	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	11/06/2012
Corbitt, Jo Anne	Individual	Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	09/19/2025
Elc of Brazil, LLC	Organization	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	11/06/2012
Elc of Brazil, LLC	Organization	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	09/19/2025
Fry, Janice	Individual	Managing Control - Governing Body	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2012
Fry, Janice	Individual	Trustee of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2012
Headley, Matthew	Individual	Managing Control - Governing Body	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2012
Headley, Matthew	Individual	Trustee of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2012
HHSS Management, LLC	Organization	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	04/01/2020
HHSS Management, LLC	Organization	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	04/01/2020
Hoosier Care Properties INC	Organization	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2015
Hoosier West Leasing Company LLC	Organization	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	11/06/2012
Landry, Keith	Individual	Managing Control - Governing Body	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2020
Landry, Keith	Individual	Trustee of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2020

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

"What do you do daily to keep residents moving, and how do you help residents at risk of losing mobility?"
"Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
"How is your kitchen staffed, and have meals ever been delayed because of staffing?"
"What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
"How do you protect residents' privacy, both in their medical records and in day-to-day care?"
"What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
"How do you care for residents with incontinence or catheters, and what do you do to prevent urinary tract infections?"
"How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
"What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
"Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

Facility	Distance	City	Overall	Inspection	Flags
Cloverleaf of Knightsville	1.1 mi	Knightsville, IN	★★★★☆	4/5
Signature Healthcare of Terre Haute	14.1 mi	Terre Haute, IN	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Majestic Care of Deming Park	14.5 mi	Terre Haute, IN	★★☆☆☆	1/5	abuseSFF
Hickory Creek at Sunset	15.1 mi	Greencastle, IN	★★★★☆	3/5
Asbury Towers Health Care Center	15.5 mi	Greencastle, IN	★★★★★	4/5
Waters of Greencastle, the	15.5 mi	Greencastle, IN	★★☆☆☆	1/5
Southwood Healthcare Center	15.9 mi	Terre Haute, IN	★☆☆☆☆	1/5	abuseSFF
Majestic Care of Terre Haute	16.0 mi	Terre Haute, IN	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Harrison's Crossing Health Campus	16.4 mi	Terre Haute, IN	★★★★★	4/5
Mill Pond Health Campus	16.5 mi	Greencastle, IN	★★★★☆	3/5
Aperion Care Summerfield	16.8 mi	Cloverdale, IN	★★★★★	4/5
Westminster Village Health & Rehab	16.9 mi	Terre Haute, IN	★★☆☆☆	2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Brazil →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 155503.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Hutsonwood at Brazil

501 S Murphy Ave, Brazil, IN 47834 · 8124462636

Health inspection rating 1/5 · CMS overall 1/5· Fines (3y): $0

Most serious findings on record:

▲ Jan 12, 2026 (F-0688, Actual harm, one-off): The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline.

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "What do you do daily to keep residents moving, and how do you help residents at risk of losing mobility?"
☐ "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
☐ "How is your kitchen staffed, and have meals ever been delayed because of staffing?"
☐ "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
☐ "How do you protect residents' privacy, both in their medical records and in day-to-day care?"
☐ "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
☐ "How do you care for residents with incontinence or catheters, and what do you do to prevent urinary tract infections?"
☐ "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
☐ "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
☐ "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

While you're there, notice:

☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)

Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 155503 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)