Siskin Subacute West
1 Sisken Plaza, Chattanooga, TN 37403 · Non profit - Corporation · 108 certified beds · (423) 847-4100 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (26% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- inspectors cited 5 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $93,919 in federal fines (most recent 2023-10-29)
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 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 held steady at 2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.4% | 1.7% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.7% | 79.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 14.0% | 22.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.4% | 11.2% | 12.0% | better |
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.
69.7% 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 391 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 69.8% 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 179 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 1.56 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 99% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 21% 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 | 69.7%CMS range 66.8–73.5 | 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 | 10.0%CMS range 7.4–13.1 | 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 | 69.8% | 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 | 68.2% | 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 | 51.4% | 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 | 98.1% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 97.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 6.1%CMS range 3.6–9.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.76 | 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 34.1 residents a day — about 32% occupied, or roughly 74 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 5.86 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.69 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.81 is at or above 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 5.64 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.95 on weekdays — 5% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.87 to 1.23 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 26% is below 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2023-10-29 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop 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 update residents' care plans after a fall with new and appropriate interventions for 3 residents (Residents #1, #86 and #93), and the facility's failure resulted in the potential for harm for Resident #1 by failing to develop and implement appropriate interventions after a fall with major injury on 8/5/2022, and resulted in actual harm when Resident #86 sustained a right hip fracture after a fall on 10/6/2023, Resident #93 sustained a close head injury after a fall on 10/18/2023, and Resident #93 fell again on 10/19/2023 and was sent to the Emergency Department (ED) for Altered Mental Status (AMS). The facility failed to give Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) access to the care plans in the electronic medical record and failed to have a person-centered care plan for 11 residents (Residents #1, #3, #6, #20, #86, #88, #93, #134, #136, #137, and #138) of 16 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility's…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2023-10-29 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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 Resident #86 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Right Hip Fracture (10/7/2023), Dementia, Osteoarthritis, and Lumbar Compression Fractures. Review of Resident #86's baseline care plan dated 9/26/2023, showed the Safety section of the care plan was blank. Continued review showed Cognition .Orientation .to person .to place .Therapy Services .Physical (PT) .Occupational (OT) . Review of Resident #86's comprehensive care plan dated 9/26/2023, showed .ALTERATION IN SAFETY; RISK FOR INJURY (ACTUAL) .Related to: New Environment .PATIENT WILL NOT EXPERIENCE ANY INJURY OF UNKNOWN OR UNTOWARD EVENTS DURING HOSPITALIZATION .COMPLETE AND IMPLEMENT THE FALL RISK SCREEN .UPDATE AND IMPLEMENT FALL RISK SCREEN EACH WEEK .UPDATE AND IMPLEMENT FALL RISK SCREEN AFTER ANY EVENT INCLUDING FALL, MEDICATION CHANGE, OR CHANGE IN PATIENT CONDITION .EVALUATE MENTAL STATUS/ORIENTATION .PROVIDE CUES (WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS OR PICTURES) TO FACILITATE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT. USE COMPENSATORY…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2023-10-29 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — patternAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
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, review of facility documentation, observation and interview, the Administration failed to provide effective leadership and oversight to ensure effective systems were in place to address falls which resulted in fall with injuries for Residents #1, #86, and #93. The Administration's failure to identify serious outcomes related to falls, address the concerns in QAPI, ensure direct care staff members had access to the care planned falls interventions , and ensure fall investigations were reviewed and complete resulted in an immediate jeopardy for Resident #1, #86, and #93 and had the potential or likelihood to affect all 40 residents of the facility. (IJ), (a situation in which the provider's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation has caused, or is likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident). The Administrator, Administrator in Training, [NAME] President(VP)of Compliance, and the Director of Health…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2023-10-29 · tag F0837 — patternEstablish a governing body that is legally responsible for establishing and implementing policies for managing and operating the facility and appoints a properly licensed administrator responsible for managing the facility.
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 medical record review, review of facility documents, observation and interviews, The facility's governing body failed to provide effective leadership, oversight to the Administrator, establish, develop, revise and implement an effective fall program to include CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) access to care plans to include fall interventions, and failed to oversee and maintain an effective QAPI (Quality Assessment Performance Improvement) program. The facility's failure placed Resident #1, #86, and #93 in immediate jeopardy (IJ) (a situation in which the provider's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation has caused, or is likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident) and had the potential or likelihood to affect all 40 residents in the facility. The Administrator, Administrator in Training, [NAME] President of Compliance, and the Director of Health Information Services and Privacy Officer was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 10/24/2023 at…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2023-10-29 · tag F0867 — failed to act on quality-improvement findings — patternSet up an ongoing quality assessment and assurance group to review quality deficiencies and develop corrective plans of action.
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, facility documentation review, medical record review, observation and interview, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee failed to reassess, monitor ongoing concerns, and perform a root cause analysis related with falls for Residents #1, #86, and #93. The facility failed develop an effective QAPI program that recognized concerns to ensure systems and processes were in place and consistently followed by staff to prevent falls for Residents #1, #86, and #93. The failure of the QAPI Committee to ensure a safe environment and develop corrective action plans for falls resulted in an immediate jeopardy for Resident #1, #86, and #93 and had the potential or likelihood to affect all 40 residents of the facility. (IJ), (a situation in which the provider's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation has caused, or is likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident). The Administrator, Administrator in…
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 · D2026-05-06 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident health information remained private and confidential for 1 resident (Resident #5) of 5 residents observed during medication administration, which had the potential to allow unauthorized individuals access to the residents' private health information.The findings include: Review of the facility's policy dated, 4/14/2004, titled, HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act] Privacy Plan, revealed .The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) establishes regulations for the use and disclosure of Protected Health Information (PHI) .will inform and educate all employees with access to PHI .about its various privacy policies and procedures .will establish .appropriate safeguards to prevent PHI from intentionally or unintentionally being used or disclosed . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #5 was admitted to facility on 4/24/2026 with diagnoses including Encounter for Surgical Aftercare following Surgery on the…
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 · F2023-10-29 · tag F0700 — widespreadTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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 medical record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to complete side (bed) rail assessments for the risk of entrapment and failed to obtain consent for side rails for 3 residents (Residents #20, #138, and #235) of 3 residents reviewed for side rails. The findings include: Resident #20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Fracture of Right Fibula, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Morbid Obesity, Congestive Heart Failure, Anxiety, and Tremor. Review of Resident #20's medical record showed no order, entrapment risk safety assessments, or consent for bed rails. Review of Resident #20's comprehensive care plan dated 8/17/2023, showed .ALTERATION IN SAFETY; RISK FOR INJURY .PATIENT WILL NOT EXPERIENCE ANY INJURY OR UNTOWARD EVENTS DURING HOSPITALIZATION .EDUCATE PATIENT AND/OR FAMILY IN METHODS FOR SAFELY USING ASSISITVE DEVICES (WHEELCHAIR, WALKER, NON-SLIP SHOES) AND THE MANAGEMENT OF A SAFE ENVIRONMENT (TRIPPING HAZARDS, SIDE RAILS, ADEQUATE LIGHTING) . Review of…
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 · F2023-10-29 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — widespreadRegularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
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 documentation review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure routine and regular scheduled side rail assessments were completed to identify the risk of entrapment for 3 residents (Residents #20, #138, and #235) of 3 residents reviewed for side rails. The findings include: Review the facility's untitled maintenance log used for monthly bed inspections showed the following areas were assessed .Condition of Cords/Plug .Headboard .Foot Rails .Hand Rails .Bed Frame .Electrical Safety Check .Caster Locking Mechanism . Resident #20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Fracture of Right Fibula, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Morbid Obesity, Asthma, Congestive Heart Failure, Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation, Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Anxiety, and Restless Leg Syndrome. During an observation on 10/16/2023 at 11:53 AM, Resident #20 was lying on a bariatric bed with an air mattress. There were bilateral ½ upper side rails and ½ left lower side…
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 · D2023-10-29 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
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, record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to promote care that maintained a resident's dignity, respect, and quality of care when staff failed to provide a privacy bag for 1 resident (Resident #136) of 3 residents reviewed with indwelling urinary catheters. The findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Subacute Patient's Rights Statement, showed .Patients [residents] in the Subacute Rehabilitation Program have all rights .include at least the following .dignity in an environment that promotes a positive self image .To be free from humiliation . Resident #138 was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Strep Arthritis to Left Shoulder. Review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed Resident #138 had an indwelling urinary catheter. Review of a hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] showed Resident #138 had an indwelling urinary catheter in place on 10/5/2023. Review of physician orders dated 10/15/2023…
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 · D2023-10-29 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
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 review the baseline care plan and provide a written summary to 1 resident (Resident #136) of 16 residents reviewed for base line care plans. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Care plan preparation, long-term care, dated 5/22/2023, showed A care plan is an individualized, written action plan for a resident's care .On completion .the facility must provide .a written summary of the baseline care plan . Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Subacute Patient's Rights Statement, showed .Patients [residents] in the Subacute Rehabilitation Program have all rights .include at least the following .To be involved in all aspects of care including development of care plan . Resident #136 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Scoliosis, Hypertension, History of Fracture of Right Femoral Neck and Degenerative Joint Disease. Review of a baseline care plan dated…
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 · D2023-10-29 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 job description, facility policy review, medical record review, and interview the facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plan after the comprehensive assessment for 3 residents (Residents #18, #20, and #235) of 8 residents reviewed for care plans. The findings include: Review of the facility's job description for the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator titled, SubAcute Patient Assessment Coordinator, revised on 10/2009, showed .The Patient Assessment Coordinator's .primary job responsibility is to ensure accurate and timely completion and submission of the Resident Assessment Instrument, including MDS .and Care Plans .Completes 5 day, 14 day and 30 day MDS accurately to ensure maximum reimbursement and meet nursing home guidelines .Completes the Care Plan process .Demonstrates an understanding of and adherence to hospital-wide and stated standards including .CMS [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] . Review of the facility's policy titled, Nursing Plan of Care, reviewed on…
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 · D2023-10-29 · 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, observation, and interview, the facility failed to obtain a Physician's Order for the continued use of an indwelling urinary catheter (a tube inserted in the bladder to drain urine), failed to obtain a Physician's Order for catheter care, and failed to document medical justification for the use of a urinary catheter for 1 resident (Resident #86) of XX residents reviewed for catheter use. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Urinary Incontinence and Indwelling Urinary Catheter (Foley) Management, dated 12/11/18, revealed .A resident who is admitted to the facility without an indwelling urinary catheter [tube inserted in the bladder to drain urine into a bag outside of the body] shall not be catheterized unless there is a valid medical justification .the facility must ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice . Review of the facility policy titled, Indwelling urinary catheter…
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 · D2023-10-29 · tag F0732 — isolatedPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, Daily Nursing Forms review, observation and interview, the facility failed to post accurate daily staffing for Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN) and Registered Nurses (RN) for 6 of 33 days reviewed. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Posting of nurse staffing-Skilled Nursing Services, dated 2003, showed .facility must post the following information on a daily basis .total number .of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift .posting must be updated if staffing changes . Observation on 10/21/2023 at 4:44 AM of the DAILY NURSING FORMS posted by the elevator at the entrance to the facility showed, .DATE:10/20/2023 .CENSUS: 36 . The staff posting showed there were 2 RNs, 2 LPNs, and 4 CNAs working the 7PM - 7AM shift. Based on facility policy review, Daily Nursing Forms review, observation and interview, the facility failed to post accurate daily staffing for Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN) and Registered Nurses…
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 · D2023-10-29 · 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 medical record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to maintain a complete and accurate medical record for 2 residents (Residents #18 and #88) of 25 residents reviewed for medical records. The findings include: Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Pain due to Internal Orthopedic Prosthetic Devices, Atherosclerotic Heart Disease, Acute Kidney Failure, and Depression. Review of Resident #18's admission Orders dated [DATE], showed .Code Status .FULL . Review of Resident #18's Comprehensive Care Plan dated [DATE], showed .FULL CODE .RESUSCITATE (CPR) FULL CODE . Review of Resident #18's Tennessee Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment (POST) form dated [DATE], showed .CARDIOPULMONARY RESUSCITATION (CPR) .Resuscitate (CPR) .Full Treatment . The form was signed by the physician and a Registered Nurse (RN). The form was not signed by Resident #18. Review of Resident #18's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] showed the resident had…
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 · D2023-10-29 · 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, observation, and interview, the facility failed to maintain appropriate infection control practices for 1 resident (Resident #137) of 4 residents observed in Transmission Based Precautions (TBP) and failed to provide hand hygiene assistance for residents prior to the meal on 1 of 5 hallways observed for meal tray distribution. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Feeding, long-term care, dated 11/28/2022, showed .Before the meal tray arrives, give the resident soap, water, a washcloth, and a hand towel to clean the hands. If needed, assist the resident with handwashing . Review of the facility's policy titled, Transmission Based Precautions, reviewed on 7/13/2023, showed .Contact precautions reduce the risk of transmission .Contact precautions are used for known or suspected infections spread by direct patient contact or by contact with items in the patient's environment. These guidelines must be observed in addition to standard precautions when contact…
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 · D2023-10-29 · 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 #7) for medical contraindications prior to providing the Influenza vaccine of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations. The findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Immunization (vaccine) guidelines, showed .The influenza immunization will be offered to all residents annually from October 1 of the current year through March 31 of the following year unless immunization is medically contraindicated or the resident has already been immunized during this time period .Before offering the influenza immunization each resident or the resident's representative will receive education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the immunization .The residents medical record will include documentation of education provided to the resident/resident representative on the benefits and the potential side effects of influenza immunization and the resident either…
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.
- 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
$93,919 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $93,919 — penalty dated 2023-10-29
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SISKIN HOSPITAL FOR PHYSICAL REHABILITATION | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/01/2014 |
| ARNHART, CAROL | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2010 |
| GIBSON, MATTHEW | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/29/2020 |
| ARANT, CHARLES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2016 |
| BERKE, MONIQUE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2014 |
| BINDER, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2020 |
| DECOSIMO, ROSE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/01/2016 |
| FILLAUER, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2017 |
| GODBOLD, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2022 |
| GRAEFE, MARIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2022 |
| HARPER, TRUDY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2015 |
| KROGH, JONES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2016 |
| MATHIS, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2015 |
| MCCRIGHT, ELIZABETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2017 |
| MCKENNEY, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2015 |
| RUTLEDGE, VALERIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2014 |
| SHAH, RUCHIR | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2022 |
| SHAW, MARCUS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2018 |
| WEAVER, JENNIFER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2016 |
| WILDER, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 27 rows in the source record cover these 20 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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.
What families pay in TN
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Tennessee Medicaid page.
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 445008. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-06, 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.