Munster Med-Inn: Wrong Wound Treatment Applied - IN
By October 23, the wound on a resident's right medial distal foot had turned. What had been mostly granulation tissue, the kind that signals healing, was now 60% adhered necrotic black tissue. The physician, who was present in the facility that day, changed the treatment order to Mupirocin 2% ointment, applied daily and as needed.
The wound nurse was there too. Her initials were on the bandages from that visit.
When inspectors interviewed her on October 27, she said she had been unaware the treatment order had changed. She had not applied the Mupirocin. She also said the bandages she had been working with were old and outdated.
The foot had been tracked across multiple physician notes through October. On October 13, a lateral wound measured 1.7 centimeters long, with a bed that was 80% granulation tissue. Three days later, a separate wound on the distal medial foot was documented as 100% intact but purple-maroon in color, its depth unmeasurable. By October 20, the lateral wound showed 90% granulation tissue, a sign that held. Then came October 23, and the shift.
The Director of Nursing, interviewed the following morning, said wound and skin treatments should be done as ordered by the physician. She offered nothing beyond that.
The wound nurse's initials on the October 23 bandages placed her in the room when the order changed. What she carried forward from that visit, and what she didn't, is what the inspection captured.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Munster Med-inn from 2025-10-28 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Download the official CMS inspection PDF from Medicare.gov
Additional Resources
Data source: This article is based on inspection data downloaded directly from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) via Medicare.gov. CMS releases inspection reports in bulk; we publish the findings as documented by state surveyors in the official Form CMS-2567 Statement of Deficiencies.
Plan of correction: The CMS report we receive does not include the facility's plan of correction. Facilities submit plans of correction separately to state survey agencies and those responses may not be reflected in CMS data at the time of publication. The absence of a plan of correction in our data does not mean one was not filed. Readers who want information about corrective steps taken are encouraged to contact the facility directly or their state survey agency.
Corrections may have occurred: Inspection reports reflect conditions observed on the date of the survey. Facilities may have implemented corrections, staffing changes, additional training, or other remediation since the report was issued. We report what CMS provides and encourage readers to seek current information from the facility.
Editorial process: Inspection findings are extracted from CMS source documents and synthesized using AI, reviewed for factual accuracy against the original report by our editorial team.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: September 5, 2026 · Our methodology
MUNSTER MED-INN in MUNSTER, IN was cited for violations during a health inspection on October 28, 2025.
By October 23, the wound on a resident's right medial distal foot had turned.
Health inspections identify deficiencies that facilities must correct. Violations range from minor documentation issues to serious safety concerns. Review the full report below for specific details and facility response.