← Back to search results

IGNITE MEDICAL RESORT CHESTERTON

CHESTERTON, IN · Porter County · For profit - Individual · 70 certified beds

📍 2775 Village Point, Chesterton, IN 46304  ·  📞 (219) 304-6700

Medicare ID: 155844  ·  Last Medicare inspection: Feb 24, 2026

Overall Safety Score
52
out of 100
Serious Concerns
Component Scores
20
Inspection
42
Staffing
✓ Clean
Enforcement
55
Complaints
50
Quality
📋 Last inspected: February 24, 2026 📦 CMS data as of: May 2026

Score Breakdown

Inspection
20
Staffing
42
Enforcement
100
Complaints
55
Quality Outcomes
50

What the numbers mean

IGNITE MEDICAL RESORT CHESTERTON scored 52 out of 100 — 19 points below the state average of 71.

📋 Inspections: 76 citations over the last 36 months — 41 more than the state average (35). None were rated as causing actual harm to residents. 34 findings recurred across inspection cycles — indicating a problem that was not fixed.

🚨 Staffing: Staffing levels are well below average — this is a serious concern. Understaffing leads to worse resident outcomes. We strongly recommend asking for staffing schedules and speaking with current residents or family members before making any decision.

⚖️ Penalties & enforcement: No significant federal fines or enforcement actions on record — a positive indicator of consistent regulatory compliance.

⚠️ Complaints: Above-average complaint activity. Complaint surveys are unannounced and targeted — they often surface problems that routine annual inspections miss. Ask management about the nature of complaints filed and how each was resolved.

⚠️ Resident quality outcomes: Some quality measures are below national benchmarks. Areas like fall prevention, pain management, or medication use may warrant closer attention.

🔍 Most cited areas: The facility had a problem with electrical systems, emergency power, outlets, power strips, generators, utilities, or medical gas handling. These issues can create fire or emergency-response risks., The facility had a problem with corridor doors, smoke doors, or hallway barriers that are supposed to slow smoke and fire spread so residents have time to evacuate or shelter safely.. The full report provides the complete citation record with dates, severity levels, and plain-English descriptions.

What inspectors found (last 3 surveys)

76
Total citations
State avg: 35.2
0
Serious (G+)
State avg: 0.6
34
Repeat findings

Top concern areas

62
6
Electrical & Utility Safety
The facility had a problem with electrical systems, emergency power, outlets, power strips, generators, utilities, or medical gas handling. These issues can create fire or emergency-response risks.
2
Fire Doors & Corridors
The facility had a problem with corridor doors, smoke doors, or hallway barriers that are supposed to slow smoke and fire spread so residents have time to evacuate or shelter safely.

⚖ Penalties & Enforcement

Federal civil monetary penalties (CMPs) are only issued after a facility has failed two levels of regulatory review — meaning problems were found on inspection and the facility could not rebut the findings. This is a serious escalation beyond a standard citation.

No federal penalties on record. CMS has not issued civil monetary penalties or payment denials against this facility in the current reporting period.
📋 Enforcement Context Analysis
Clean enforcement record — No significant federal enforcement actions or fines on record for this facility. This is a positive indicator.
✅ No enforcement actions on record. This facility's enforcement score of 100/100 reflects a clean enforcement history in the current CMS reporting cycle.

📅 Per-action enforcement records (date, fine amount, and penalty type for each individual action) are sourced from a separate CMS enforcement dataset and will be added in a future data update.

🩹

Resident Wellbeing — Key Indicators

These are the measures families ask about most. They come from CMS clinical assessments of every resident — not just inspection reports. Stars (★) count toward the official CMS quality star rating.

Re-hospitalized after discharge
24.4% lower is better
How often short-stay residents who went home ended up back in the hospital within 30 days. Risk-adjusted for resident health.
Hospitalization rate
12.6% lower is better
How often long-stay residents were hospitalized over the past year. Adjusted for how sick residents were.

Source: CMS MDS Quality Measures & Medicare claims data. Scores shown are the most recent 4-quarter averages for long-stay residents.

Track this facility with free email alerts

Get notified when new inspections, citations, score changes, or enforcement actions are published for this facility.

No account or payment required. Enter your email and we will save this facility-watch request.

What to know about Ignite Medical Resort Chesterton

Ignite Medical Resort Chesterton is a Medicare-certified nursing home in Chesterton, In with 70 certified beds. Its current Senior Care Report Card score is 52/100, placing it in the Serious Concerns range. The latest CMS survey date in our data is Feb 24, 2026. Over the last 36 months, our CMS citation data shows 76 citations and 34 repeat findings. Families comparing this facility should pay close attention to inspection history, staffing, complaint activity, quality outcomes before scheduling a tour or accepting placement. Ownership type on file: For profit - Individual.

⚠️
Overall Assessment — Serious Concerns  ·  52/100
This facility has notable issues in the federal inspection record that require careful evaluation.
What to do next: Do not choose without thoroughly reviewing all citations below and getting answers in writing from management.
👥
Staffing Below Federal Minimum Standards
This facility provides 0.44 RN hours per resident per day — below the CMS minimum of 0.75 hours. Total nurse staffing is 3.79 hours per resident per day. Understaffing is the strongest predictor of poor inspection outcomes. Ask specifically about RN coverage on evenings, nights, and weekends.

What this facility's data shows

📋 Inspections
Inspection record is well below average. Multiple or serious deficiencies found.
👥 Staffing
Staffing is below recommended levels. Ask about RN coverage on nights and weekends.
⚖ Penalties
No significant federal enforcement actions or fines in the record.
💬 Complaints
Higher-than-average complaint volume. Complaint surveys are often triggered by serious resident concerns.
Multiple quality measures are below national benchmarks. Ask management directly about resident care practices.
Score breakdown — the numbers behind this assessment
👥 Staffing 42
What it measures RN hours per resident per day, total nurse hours, and RN turnover rate.
💡 Understaffing is the strongest single predictor of poor inspection outcomes.
📋 Inspection 20
What it measures Number, severity (A–L), and scope of deficiencies found. Repeat findings carry extra weight.
💡 Every citation in Section D feeds directly into this score.
⚖ Penalties 100
What it measures Whether CMS escalated from a deficiency citation to actual financial or operational sanctions.
💡 A penalty means the facility already failed a second level of regulatory review.
💬 Complaints 55
What it measures Volume of complaint-triggered inspections and the share that were substantiated.
💡 Complaint surveys are unannounced — they often surface issues annual surveys miss.
🎯 Quality outcomes 50
What it measures Resident outcome measures: falls, pressure ulcers, antipsychotic use, weight loss, hospitalizations.
💡 Reflects the lived experience of residents beyond what inspectors observe.

Each pillar scores 0–100 and is combined into the overall score. A strong overall can mask a weak pillar — compare all four and see how they stack against the state average in Section B.

🏗 How This Facility Compares to IN State Averages

Comparing a facility to others in the same state puts its score in context. A facility might have 8 citations and that could be above average in one state and below in another. Green means this facility is doing better than its peers; red means it's falling short.

Metric This facility IN avg vs. State
Overall score
The combined Senior Care Report Card score out of 100.
52 71 ▼ Worse than state avg
Inspection score
How well the facility performs on standard health surveys.
20 55 ▼ Worse than state avg
Staffing score
RN hours, total nurse hours, and staff turnover from CMS payroll data.
42 54 ▼ Worse than state avg
Penalty score
Fines, payment denials, and enforcement actions on file.
100 90 ▲ Better than state avg
Complaint score
Volume of complaint surveys and substantiated complaints.
55 89 ▼ Worse than state avg
Quality score
Resident clinical outcomes vs national benchmarks: falls, antipsychotics, pain, vaccination, hospitalizations.
50 75 ▼ Worse than state avg
Citations (3 yrs)
Total number of deficiencies cited in the last 36 months.
76 35.2 ▼ Worse than state avg
Serious citations
Citations rated severity G or higher (actual harm or immediate jeopardy).
0 0.6 ▲ Better than state avg

📅 Inspection Timeline

State health inspectors visit nursing homes on a regular cycle — typically every 12 to 15 months — and document every deficiency they find. The timeline below shows the date and scale of each inspection visit over the past several years. A pattern of worsening surveys is a red flag even if the most recent visit looks clean.

2026-02-24
22 citations
2025-12-11
2 citations
2025-09-25
3 citations
2025-06-04
3 citations
2025-04-28
3 citations
2025-03-13
9 citations
2024-11-01
20 citations
2024-08-29
1 citations
2024-07-02
1 citations
2024-06-03
2 citations

Bar length proportional to citation count. Red = serious findings (severity G+). Orange = elevated. Green = low.

📄 Full Citation Record

Every time state inspectors visit a nursing home, they write up anything that doesn’t meet federal standards. Each write-up is called a citation.

Each citation shows what the problem was and how serious it was, using a color-coded badge:

Confused by codes like F0732 or K0363? Use the free inspection report decoder to understand F-tags, fire-safety K-tags, severity letters, and repeat findings. Get the decoder →
Green — No residents harmed Yellow — Risk of harm, no injury Orange — A resident was harmed Red — Life or safety in danger

A Repeat tag means the same problem appeared in a previous inspection — it was not fully corrected the first time. Citations shown cover the last two years.

Survey: 2026-02-24 22 citation(s)
K0921 No harm, could worsen
Electrical safety: equipment grounding
The facility had a problem with electrical systems, emergency power, outlets, power strips, generators, utilities, or medical gas handling. These issues can create fire or emergency-response risks.
K0918 No harm, could worsen
Electrical safety: essential electrical system maintenance
The facility had a problem with electrical systems, emergency power, outlets, power strips, generators, utilities, or medical gas handling. These issues can create fire or emergency-response risks.
K0914 No harm, could worsen
Electrical safety: outlets, wiring and equipment maintenance
The facility had a problem with electrical systems, emergency power, outlets, power strips, generators, utilities, or medical gas handling. These issues can create fire or emergency-response risks.
K0353 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: sprinkler system maintenance and testing
The facility had a problem with sprinkler coverage, maintenance, testing, or outage procedures. Sprinklers are a key fire-protection system that help control fires before residents are in danger.
K0281 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: emergency lighting
The facility had a problem with exits, stairways, emergency lighting, or evacuation routes that residents and staff may need during a fire or emergency.
K0927 No harm, could worsen
K0927
Fire and life safety requirement. This is a building, fire protection, emergency preparedness, or electrical-safety issue found during a CMS life-safety inspection. Families should ask what was repaired, when it was corrected, and whether staff were retrained.
E0041 No harm, could worsen
E0041
E0039 No harm, could worsen
E0039
K0712 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: fire drills and staff preparedness
The facility had a problem with fire drills, evacuation planning, staff preparedness, or documentation showing that staff know what to do in an emergency.
E0037 No harm, could worsen
E0037
K0293 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: hazardous area doors
The facility did not fully protect higher-risk rooms or equipment areas, such as storage, laundry, kitchens, or other spaces where fire could start or spread faster.
F0692 No harm, could worsen
Nutrition & hydration status
F0761 No harm, could worsen
Medication storage & labeling
K0511 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: gas, electric and utility systems
The facility had a problem with electrical systems, emergency power, outlets, power strips, generators, utilities, or medical gas handling. These issues can create fire or emergency-response risks.
K0372 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: smoke barriers must be maintained
The facility had a problem with corridor doors, smoke doors, or hallway barriers that are supposed to slow smoke and fire spread so residents have time to evacuate or shelter safely.
F0554 No harm, could worsen
Right to refuse treatment
F0688 No harm, could worsen
Range of motion & mobility
F0880 No harm, could worsen
Infection prevention & control
F0842 No harm, could worsen
Medical records accuracy & security
F0656 No harm, could worsen
Comprehensive care plan
F0690 No harm, could worsen
Bowel & bladder care
F0684 No harm, could worsen
Quality of care
Survey: 2025-12-11 2 citation(s)
F0684 No harm, could worsen
Quality of care
F0842 No harm, could worsen
Medical records accuracy & security
Survey: 2025-09-25 3 citation(s)
F0558 No harm, could worsen
Reasonable accommodations
F0684 No harm, could worsen
Quality of care
F0698 No harm, could worsen
F0698
Survey: 2025-06-04 3 citation(s)
F0755 No harm, could worsen
Pharmaceutical services
F0679 No harm, could worsen
Activities program
F0628 No harm, could worsen
F0628
Survey: 2025-04-28 3 citation(s)
F0690 No harm, could worsen
Bowel & bladder care
F0880 No harm, could worsen
Infection prevention & control
F0557 No harm, could worsen
Right to access medical records
Survey: 2025-03-13 9 citation(s)
F0684 No harm, could worsen
Quality of care
F0689 No harm, could worsen
Accident & hazard prevention
F0557 No harm, could worsen
Right to access medical records
F0580 No harm, could worsen
Notification of change in condition
F0694 No harm, could worsen
F0694
F0695 No harm, could worsen
Respiratory care
F0693 No harm, could worsen
Tube feeding management
F0880 No harm, could worsen
Infection prevention & control
F0677 No harm, could worsen
Personal hygiene & grooming assistance
Survey: 2024-11-01 20 citation(s)
F0921 No harm, could worsen
F0921
F0812 No harm, could worsen
Food sanitation & safety
K0923 No harm, could worsen
Gas safety: medical gas storage and handling
The facility had a problem with electrical systems, emergency power, outlets, power strips, generators, utilities, or medical gas handling. These issues can create fire or emergency-response risks.
F0880 No harm, could worsen
Infection prevention & control
F0761 No harm, could worsen
Medication storage & labeling
K0324 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: cooking equipment and kitchen protection
The facility did not fully protect higher-risk rooms or equipment areas, such as storage, laundry, kitchens, or other spaces where fire could start or spread faster.
F0695 No harm, could worsen
Respiratory care
K0351 No harm, could worsen
Fire safety: sprinkler system installation
The facility had a problem with sprinkler coverage, maintenance, testing, or outage procedures. Sprinklers are a key fire-protection system that help control fires before residents are in danger.
F0554 No harm, could worsen
Right to refuse treatment
F0694 No harm, could worsen
F0694
F0677 No harm, could worsen
Personal hygiene & grooming assistance
F0757 No harm, could worsen
Unnecessary drugs
F0550 No harm, could worsen
Resident rights & dignity
F0698 No harm, could worsen
F0698
F0842 No harm, could worsen
Medical records accuracy & security
F0690 No harm, could worsen
Bowel & bladder care
F0684 No harm, could worsen
Quality of care
F0759 No harm, could worsen
Medication error rate control
F0692 No harm, could worsen
Nutrition & hydration status
F0881 No harm, could worsen
Infection preventionist qualifications
Survey: 2024-08-29 1 citation(s)
F0684 No harm, could worsen
Quality of care
Survey: 2024-07-02 1 citation(s)
F0757 No harm, could worsen
Unnecessary drugs
🩹

How Are Residents Doing?

Inspections tell you whether a facility followed the rules. These measures tell you how residents actually fared — whether they fell, experienced pain, lost weight, or were over-medicated. CMS collects this data through regular clinical assessments that nurses complete for every resident. Unlike inspections, which happen once a year, these assessments happen continuously.

✓ Positive signal: Most star-rated quality measures for this facility are within a good range, suggesting residents\' day-to-day wellbeing compares favorably to typical nursing homes.

How to read these cards: Each card shows one measure. Lower percentages are better for most (e.g. fewer falls), but higher is better for vaccination rates and community return. ★ Star rating marks measures CMS uses in its official quality star rating.

Short Stay Residents — 2025Q1-2025Q4
★ Star rating
Worsening depression symptoms
1.0% lower is better
Share of long-stay residents whose depression got measurably worse over the past year — despite being in a care facility.
Percentage of short-stay residents assessed and a…
69.0% lower is better
Percentage of short-stay residents assessed and appropriately given the pneumococcal vaccine
Emergency room visits (short-stay)
50.5% lower is better
Share of short-stay residents sent to the ER during their recovery stay. ER visits are disruptive for recovering patients and sometimes avoidable with better on-site clinical management.

Source: CMS MDS Quality Measures (2025Q1-2025Q4). Collected via standardized clinical assessments — not inspector visits.

🏥

Hospitalization & ER Visits

These numbers come directly from Medicare claims — real billing records of every time a resident was hospitalized or sent to the emergency room. They\'re among the most objective measures of care quality because they can\'t be influenced by how a facility writes up an assessment. The adjusted score is the most meaningful number — it\'s been corrected to account for how sick residents were, so a facility treating frailer patients isn\'t unfairly penalized.

What to look for: An adjusted score significantly above the expected score means this facility hospitalizes residents more often than peer facilities with similar patient populations — that gap is worth asking about directly.

Short Stay Residents — 20241001-20250930
★ Star rating
Re-hospitalized after going home
24.4% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 26.0% Expected: 25.4%
About the same as similar facilities
How often short-stay residents who went home ended up back in the hospital within 30 days. A high rate suggests residents were discharged before they were ready, or that the facility didn't coordinate follow-up care well. Risk-adjusted so facilities treating sicker residents aren't unfairly penalized.
★ Star rating
Hospitalization rate (long-stay)
12.6% risk-adjusted rate
Actual: 13.3% Expected: 11.8%
About the same as similar facilities
How often long-stay residents were hospitalized over the past year, adjusted for how ill they were. A high rate relative to expectations suggests the facility may be sending residents to the hospital for issues that skilled nursing staff should be able to manage on-site.

Source: CMS Medicare claims data. Scores are risk-adjusted — they account for how ill residents were when admitted so facilities treating sicker populations aren\'t penalized for it.

💬 Questions to Ask Before Touring

These questions are generated specifically from this facility's score profile and citation history — not a generic checklist. A facility's willingness to answer them openly, and the quality of their answers, is itself an important signal. Bring this list when you tour or call.

  1. Federal inspectors found 0 citations rated as causing actual harm or immediate jeopardy in the public record. Walk us through each incident: what happened, who was affected, and what specific policy or staffing changes have been put in place since?
  2. CMS data shows this facility is significantly below the state average for total nurse hours and RN-specific hours per resident day. What is the actual RN coverage on evenings, nights, and weekends — not the regulatory minimum, but what residents consistently receive?
  3. What is your 90-day CNA and nurse turnover rate? How do you ensure a resident sees the same familiar caregivers across a given week?
  4. How do you handle formal complaints from residents or families, and what is your typical time to resolution?
  5. Some resident outcome measures are below average here. What is your current approach to fall prevention, pain management, and quarterly medication review?
  6. Can we speak privately with two or three current residents or their families?

👪 Family Decision Guide

This guide translates this facility's data into practical next steps for families. It is not a recommendation for or against placement — it is a structured framework for the conversations you need to have before making a decision.

✓ Positives to confirm

  • No significant penalty history — a positive indicator of consistent compliance
  • No serious-harm citations (G+) in the public record
  • No pattern of repeat violations detected

⚠ Areas to probe

  • Inspection score is low — ask for the most recent state survey results
  • Staffing concerns — request staffing schedules and ask about agency nurse use
  • Elevated complaint activity — ask how resident concerns are investigated
  • Always speak with at least two current residents or family members independently

📈 Score History

The score is recalculated every time CMS releases updated data (typically monthly). A consistent downward trend is more concerning than a single low score. An improving trend after a period of poor performance may indicate management changes are taking effect. Use the free facility-watch form above to get email alerts when this facility's record changes materially.

2026-05-27
52 — Concerning

🏢 Ownership & Operators

Ownership matters because large corporate chains sometimes prioritize cost controls over care quality. CMS requires every nursing home to disclose its owners, operators, and managing employees. Frequent ownership changes can disrupt staffing and operations — which is why we flag facilities that changed ownership in the past 12 months.

🔗 GOLD PEARL, LLC operates 20 facilities across TX, OK, IN, KS, MO. This is a large operator — consider researching their overall network quality.
Owner / Operator Role Ownership % Effective
GOLD PEARL, LLC Organization 1970-01-01
STERN FAMILY INVESTMENT TR Organization 1970-01-01
BERGER, AVIVA Individual 1970-01-01
FIELDS, TIMOTHY Individual 1970-01-01
JABLONSKI, NICOLE Individual 1970-01-01
ISRAEL, YEHUDIS Individual 1970-01-01
IGNITE-VILLA IN HOLDCO LLC Organization 1970-01-01
STEMER, ALEXANDER Individual 1970-01-01
HARTMAN, MARK Individual 1970-01-01
GILLIS, KAREN Individual 1970-01-01
WHITE, JIM Individual 1970-01-01
ISRAEL, BENJAMIN Individual 1970-01-01
CARR, JARED Individual 1970-01-01
BLUE PEARL FINANCIAL LLC Organization 1970-01-01
MCFARLANE, JOHN Individual 1970-01-01
GOBST, RYAN Individual 1970-01-01
ANC INDIANA OPCO LLC Organization 1970-01-01
BERGER, MENACHEM Individual 1970-01-01
DAVISSON, MARNIE Individual 1970-01-01
IGNITE CHESTERTON JV LLC Organization 1970-01-01
HARTMAN, DAVID Individual 1970-01-01
DRAKE LOUIS ENTERPRISE, LLC Organization 1970-01-01
IGNITE POST ACUTE SOLUTIONS LLC Organization 1970-01-01
IGNITE TEAM PARTNERS LLC Organization 1970-01-01
THENGIL, MATHEW Individual 1970-01-01
STERN, TODD Individual 1970-01-01
ISRAEL INVESTMENT TR Organization 1970-01-01
ROBINSON, LASHONDA Individual 1970-01-01
BERGER FAM TR UA 06252014 Organization 1970-01-01
MURUGAVEL, NIRMALA Individual 1970-01-01
CARR, BARRY Individual 1970-01-01
RAINEY, SHAWNA Individual 1970-01-01
HERRERA, KRISTINA Individual 1970-01-01
ROSE, MARC Individual 1970-01-01
PRESTIGE WORLDWIDE CHESTERTON LLC Organization 1970-01-01
ISRAEL FAMILY INVESTMENT TRUST Organization 1970-01-01
IGNITE MEDICAL RESORT CHESTERTON LLC Organization 1970-01-01

🔔 Monthly tracking is now free

We check CMS data monthly. Use the tracking form above and we will email you when new citations appear, scores change, or enforcement actions are added.

📋
Monthly report update
New citation alerts
📈
Score trend tracking
🏠 Verify this data on Medicare.gov
All data in this report comes from the CMS Care Compare database. You can review the official public record directly on Medicare.gov — including the full inspection narrative, star ratings, and any recent enforcement actions.
View on Medicare.gov ↗

This report reflects publicly available CMS data only and is updated monthly. Severity codes and narratives are reproduced directly from the CMS health inspection database. Senior Care Report Card scores are independently computed and are not affiliated with or endorsed by CMS or Medicare.gov.

Frequently asked questions

What is the Senior Care Report Card safety score for Ignite Medical Resort Chesterton?
Ignite Medical Resort Chesterton has an independently computed Safety Score of 52 out of 100, based on CMS inspection findings, staffing levels, penalty history, complaint volume, and quality measures.
Where is Ignite Medical Resort Chesterton located?
Ignite Medical Resort Chesterton is located in Chesterton, IN. View the full address, phone number, and a map at the top of this report.
How many beds does Ignite Medical Resort Chesterton have?
Ignite Medical Resort Chesterton is certified for 70 beds in the CMS Care Compare dataset.
When was the most recent CMS health inspection at Ignite Medical Resort Chesterton?
The most recent CMS health inspection summarized in this report was completed on February 24, 2026. CMS publishes a new inspection cycle approximately every 12 months.
What does the Senior Care Report Card Safety Score measure?
The Safety Score (0-100) combines five public-data signals: CMS health inspection severity, nursing staffing hours per resident, civil monetary penalties, complaint counts, and quality measures. Methodology and weightings are documented at /how-it-works/.
Is the report on Ignite Medical Resort Chesterton affiliated with the facility?
No. This report is independently computed from public CMS Care Compare data and is not affiliated with Ignite Medical Resort Chesterton, CMS, or Medicare.gov. It is provided as a research aid for families.

Data source: CMS Care Compare · Methodology · State Ombudsman

This report uses public CMS nursing home data and simplified scoring to help families ask better questions. It is not a recommendation, ranking, medical opinion, legal opinion, or substitute for an in-person visit. Source data last published by CMS: May 27, 2026.