Life Care Center Of East Ridge
1502 McDonald Road, Chattanooga, TN 37412 · For profit - Corporation · 108 certified beds · (423) 894-1254 Medicare only — no Medicaid
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- about 22% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 8.7% | 14.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 11.4% | 6.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 13.8% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 7.3% | 3.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 36.6% | 31.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.1% | 5.0% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 30.2% | 20.0% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 40.0% | 16.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.2% | 1.7% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.0% | 79.8% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.4% | 22.6% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.4% | 11.2% | 12.0% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
67.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 494 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 73.9% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 211 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 1.17 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 98% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 17% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 67.0%CMS range 62.6–71.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.8%CMS range 7.6–12.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 73.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 72.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 63.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 98.6% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 99.2% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.3% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 4.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.4%CMS range 3.7–8.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.01 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 108 beds and averages 83.9 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 24 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.43 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.81 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.37 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.07 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.57 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.96 to 0.44 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2025-08-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure temperatures for the kitchen beverage cooler and high temperature dishwasher were maintained at the recommended temperature to minimize growth of microorganisms. The findings include:Review of the facility policy titled, Food Safety and Sanitation, revised 9/8/2022, revealed .Ambient temperatures in refrigerators/coolers are to remain at or below 41* F [degrees Fahrenheit] .Temperatures are recorded at least twice daily on the Refrigerator/Freezer Temperature Log .any problems will be reported immediately to the Director of Food and Nutrition Services /Maintenance .Dish machine will be used in accordance with the manufacturer specification .The temperature of the wash rinse cycle will be recorded a minimum of three times per day on a High Temperature Dish Machine Log .A surface temperature test using a surface temperature indicator strip should be completed and logged daily on the High Temperature Dish Machine Log .Review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-21 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to properly store a nebulizer mask (a drug delivery device used to administer medication in the form of a mist which is inhaled into the lungs) for 2 residents (Resident #94 and Resident #115) of 5 sampled residents.The findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Lippincott procedures-Nebulizer Treatment, small volume, revealed .The equipment the needs to be cleaned with an EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] registered hospital disinfectant. Allowed to air dry, and then bagged .Nebulizer circuit should be stored in a patient-care set-up bag. Labeled with the patient's name and dated . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #94 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) with (Acute) Exacerbation, Chronic Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia, Emphysema, and Solitary Pulmonary Nodule. Review of the admission Minimum…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-21 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure assessment for contraindications to COVID-19 vaccines were documented in the medical record for 1 resident (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations.The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) Vaccination Program Policy for Residents, revised on 4/22/2025, revealed .facility will ensure that residents are offered the COVID-19 vaccine unless the immunization is medically contraindicated, or the resident has already been immunized .Procedure Vaccination Screening .The facility should check for the following .Prior vaccination status .The presence of medical precautions and contraindications .Once screening is completed the facility should offer residents vaccination against COVID-19 .Review of the medical record revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Polyneuropathy, Emphysema, Severe…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observations, and interviews the facility failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions were followed for 1 resident (Resident #104) of 16 residents reviewed for enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions, dated 6/3/2024 revealed .The facility should use Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) .during high-contact resident care activities .Wounds and/or indwelling medical devices .Indwelling medical devices examples include central lines, urinary catheters .Review of the medical record revealed Resident #104 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Neuromuscular Dysfunction of Bladder and Retention of Urine.Review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #104 scored a 13 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Further review the resident had an…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-21 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview the facility failed to assess 2 residents (Residents #1 and #10) for medical contraindications prior to providing the Influenza vaccine of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations. The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Influenza Vaccine Policy for Residents, dated 9/24/2024, revealed .Medical contraindication refers to a condition or risk that precludes the administration of a treatment or intervention because of the substantial probability that harm to the individual may occur .Each resident is offered an influenza immunization October 1 through March 31 annually, unless the immunization is medically contraindicated, or the resident has already been immunized during this time period .Procedure - Influenza Vaccine .The resident is assessed for possible contraindications .If contraindications are noted or if the nurse has any questions based on the assessment, the physician is notified of the assessment findings for further…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-05 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, medical record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to accurately complete a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 2 residents (Resident #25 and #11) of 18 residents reviewed for MDS assessments. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident assessment Instrument & Care Plan Development, dated 8/22/2022, revealed .The facility will follow the procedures set forth in the Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual 3.0 when completing the MDS . Review of the RAI Manual dated 10/2023, revealed .The RAI process has multiple regulatory requirements .the assessment accurately reflects the resident's status .a registered nurse conducts or coordinates each assessment with the appropriate participation of health professionals .one of the most important functions .accurate picture of the resident's current health status . Medical record review revealed Resident #25 was admitted to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-05 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to resubmit a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) after new mental health diagnoses were identified for 1 resident (Resident #44) of 12 residents reviewed for PASARR. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review, dated 10/4/2022, revealed, .The facility will ensure that potential admissions are .screened for possible serious mental disorders or intellectual disabilities .A negative Level I screen .ends the PASARR process unless a possible serious mental disorder or intellectual disability arises later .Any resident with newly evident or possible serious mental disorder .or a related condition must be referred, by the facility to the appropriate state-designated mental health or intellectual disability authority for review . Medical record review revealed Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Anxiety,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-05 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) was accurate upon admission for 1 resident (Resident #11) of 12 residents reviewed for PASARR. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review, dated 10/6/2022, revealed .facility will ensure that potential admissions are .screened for possible serious mental disorders or intellectual disabilities and related conditions .Referring all .residents .with .possible serious mental disorder .or a related condition for level II resident review . Review of a PASARR Level I Screen for Resident #11 dated 2/8/2024, revealed .No mental health diagnosis is known or suspected . Medical record review revealed Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety, and Delusional Disorder. During an interview on 6/5/2024 at 1:45 PM, the Registered Nurse (RN)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-05 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive care plan to reflect a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnosis for 1 (Resident #24) of 18 residents reviewed for care plans. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Person Centered Care Plan, dated 8/16/2022, revealed .Each person will have a person-centered comprehensive care plan developed and implemented to meet .the resident's medical, physical, mental and psychosocial needs .care plan will include measurable goals, timeframes to meet the patient's .psychosocial needs . Review of the facility's policy titled, Trauma Informed Care, dated 8/22/2023, revealed .Based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident .who has a history of .post-traumatic stress disorder receives appropriate treatment and services . Medical record review revealed Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia, Anxiety, and PTSD. Review of a comprehensive…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-05 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observations, and interview the facility failed to secure medications for 1 resident (Resident #7) of 18 residents screened for accidents and hazards. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications, Biologicals, dated 8/7/2023, revealed .Store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments .Facility should ensure that all medications .are securely stored in a locked cabinet/cart or locked medication room that is inaccessible . residents . Medical record review revealed Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Vascular Dementia, Depression, and Anxiety. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #7 scored a 6 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Review of the Nursing Monthly Summary for Resident #7 dated 5/30/2024, revealed the resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-07-20 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — patternProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, interview, and observation, the facility failed to follow a physician's order for fluid restrictions for 2 residents (#16 and #38) of 3 residents reviewed for fluid restrictions and failed to obtain weights as ordered for 1 resident (#16) of 3 residents reviewed for weights. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Monitoring Intake and Output, reviewed 7/8/2021, showed .Intake .monitoring may be initiated in the following circumstances .Resident who is on a fluid restriction .Intake .will be documented in the electronic health record . Review of the facility's policy titled, Weights and Heights, revised 7/17/2021, showed .residents are weighed within 24 hours of admission .and as needed thereafter .as determined by the .physician order . Resident #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Acute Systolic Congestive Heart Failure (CHF), Hyponatremia (low sodium), Pleural Effusion (an abnormal collection of fluid…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-07-20 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to develop a care plan for 2 residents (#10 and #27) of 18 residents reviewed for care plans. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans and Revisions dated 3/2/2022, showed .The facility will ensure the timeliness of each resident's person-centered, comprehensive care plan . Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Acute Kidney Failure, Dementia, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, and Retention of Urine. Review of a physician's order dated 6/6/2022, showed .Indwelling catheter to straight drainage . Review of a comprehensive care plan initiated on 6/6/2022, showed Resident #10 had not been care planned for the use of a urinary catheter. Review of a 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed Resident #10 had a urinary catheter in place. Observations on 7/18/2022 at 11:20 AM, 7/19/2022 at 2:00 PM, and 7/20/2022…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-07-20 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to follow a physician's order in obtaining a follow up urology (branch of medicine concerned with the function of the urinary system) appointment to assess an indwelling urinary catheter (a tube inserted into the bladder that remains in place to provide continuous urinary drainage) for 1 resident (#10) of 4 residents reviewed for urinary catheters. The findings include: Review of a facility policy titled Indwelling Urinary Catheter .Management dated 4/1/2022, showed .ensure that resident admitted with a urinary catheter .have the following areas addressed .Timely and appropriate assessments related to the indication for use of an indwelling catheter . Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Acute Kidney Failure, Dementia, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, and Retention of Urine. Review of a hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE], showed .Discharge…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-07-20 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain a completed Physician Order for Scope of Treatment (POST) form in the medical record for 1 resident (#10), and failed to obtain a physician's order for an accurate code status for 1 resident (#30) of 18 residents reviewed for Advance Directives. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Advance Directives and Advance Care Planning revised [DATE] showed .Residents have the right to self-determination regarding their medical care. This includes the right of an individual to direct his or her own medical treatment, including the right to execute or refuse to execute an advance directive .It is also required that the patient is asked about advanced directives, and to document any wishes the patient might have with regard to the care they want or do not want .Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment [or POST] .form that records patients' treatment wishes so that emergency personnel know what…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA — 194 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 3.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.3 | +0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
The other 193 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 193; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEVELOPERS INVESTMENT COMPANY INC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/02/2016 |
| PRESTON, FORREST | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/03/2017 |
| CENTER, PARKER | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/21/2021 |
| JONES, CHARLENE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/09/2024 |
| SOLOMON, JENNIFER | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/01/2019 |
| CROSS, CINDY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/13/2016 |
| HENRY, TERRY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/13/2016 |
| LAY, LISA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 02/09/2018 |
| SWANKER, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/13/2016 |
| THURMOND, JOAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/13/2016 |
| LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/27/2025 |
| BRYCE, MARIAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/27/2025 |
| FLETCHER, TODD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/13/2024 |
| PRESTON, AUBREY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/13/2024 |
| ZIEGLER, JAMES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/13/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 24 rows in the source record cover these 15 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.6M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 22% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TN
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Tennessee Medicaid page for homes that do.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 445528. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-21, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.