Ahava Healthcare Of Clarksville
111 Ussery Road, Clarksville, TN 37043 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 122 certified beds · (931) 647-0269 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- 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
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0569)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
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) | 1 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 11.7% | 14.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 6.1% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.2% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.8% | 1.8% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 8.7% | 13.8% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger 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 | 2.3% | 3.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 28.9% | 17.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 20.5% | 31.7% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.2% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.6% | 5.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.8% | 20.0% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.7% | 16.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.2% | 1.7% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 72.6% | 79.8% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 32.1% | 22.6% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 17.3% | 11.2% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.33 | 1.67 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.82 | 1.56 | 1.80 | 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.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ 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.
59.6% 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 182 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 65.1% 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 83 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 0.31 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 51% 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 | 59.6%CMS range 53.7–66.3 | 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 | 11.7%CMS range 9.1–15.9 | 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 | 65.1% | 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 | 56.6% | 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 | 55.4% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 2.7% | 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 | 8.3%CMS range 5.1–12.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.82 | 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 122 beds and averages 114.9 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 3.59 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.37 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.02 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 3.02 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.82 on weekdays — 21% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.41 to 0.25 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 55% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-29 · tag F0569 — isolatedNotify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
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 the American Council on Aging Website review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed in their responsibility in maintaining assets under $2,000 for the 2026 Tennessee Medicaid allowance for 7 of 58 (Resident #3, #6, #19, #38, #67, #81, and #93) sampled residents. The findings include: 1. Review of the American Council on Aging Website, Tennessee Medicaid (TennCare) Income & Asset Limits for Nursing Homes & In-Home Long Term Care, dated 4/30/2026, revealed .In 2026, single Medicaid Nursing Home applicant in Tennessee must meet the following criteria.Assets under $2,000. 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on 8/6/2023, with diagnoses including Diabetes Mellitus, Malnutrition, and Hypotension. Review of the Resident Statement Landscape, dated 4/29/2026, revealed Resident #3's balance was $18,955.25, which was $16,955.25 over the $2,000.00 limit. 3. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on 5/1/2006,…
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 · D2026-04-29 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 that all allegations of abuse/misappropriation of property were reported to all appropriate agencies for 1 of 1 (Resident #20) sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: 1. Review of the undated facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, revealed .It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property .Misappropriation of Resident Property means the deliberate, misplacement , exploitation, or wrongful, temporary or permanent, use of resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent .Identifying correcting and intervening in situations in which abuse, neglect, exploitation, and/or misappropriation of resident property .Reporting of all alleged violations to 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 · D2026-04-29 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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 perform an investigation for misappropriation of resident property for 1of 1 (Resident #20) sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: 1. Review of the undated facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, revealed .It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property .Misappropriation of Resident Property means the deliberate, misplacement , exploitation, or wrongful, temporary or permanent, use of resident's belongings or money without the resident's consent .An immediate investigation is warranted when suspicion of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, or reports of abuse, neglect, or exploitation occur.Identifying and interviewing all involved persons, including the alleged victim, alleged…
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 before2026-04-29 · 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, facility skill assessment review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the prevention and spread of infection when 2 of 4 staff (Registered Nurse (RN) B and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A) failed to use appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and failed to follow infection control procedures during medication administration for 2 of 6 (Residents #15 and #93) sampled residents reviewed. The findings include: 1. Review of the undated facility policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions, revealed .It is the policy of this facility to implement enhanced barrier precautions for the prevention of transmission of multidrug -resident organisms.Enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) refer to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employs targeted gown and gloves use during high contact resident care activities.PPE for enhanced barrier precautions is only necessary when…
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 · Fcited before2022-03-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, Geriatric Medication Handbook, policy review, Employee Time Punch Reports, Employee Screening Logs, observation, and interview, 3 of 5 nurses (Registered Nurse (RN) #2 and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 and #2) failed to maintain infection control practices during medication administration for 4 of 7 sampled residents (Resident #43, #56, #61, and #71) and the facility failed to follow CDC infection control guidelines to ensure practices to prevent the potential spread of Covid-19 when 14 of 132 staff members (Hospitality Aide #1, #2, and #3, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #2, #5, #6, #7, and #8, Occupational Therapist (OT) #1, Registered Nurse (RN) #3 and #4, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, Life Enrichment Coordinator, and the Administrator) failed to complete screenings for prevention and detection of COVID-19 prior to work for 4 of 4 days (2/18/2022, 2/19/2022, 2/20/2022, and 2/21/2022) reviewed. This had the potential to affect the 94 residents residing in the facility. The findings include: 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 · E2022-03-11 · tag F0622 — patternNot transfer or discharge a resident without an adequate reason; and must provide documentation and convey specific information when a resident is transferred or discharged.
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 have required discharge and transfer documentation for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #49 and #284) reviewed for hospitalization. The findings include: Review of facility's undated policy titled, Transfer and Discharge ., revealed .Emergency Transfers/ Discharges initiated by the facility .Obtain physician's orders .complete and send with the resident .a Transfer Form .Document assessment findings and other relative information regarding the transfer in the medical record . Review of the medical record, revealed Resident #49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Non-STEMI (Non ST Elevated Myocardial Infarction), End Stage Renal Disease, Hemodialysis, Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, and Cerebral Vascular Accident. Review of a Nurses' Progress Note dated 12/18/2021, revealed .Res [resident] w/ [with] complaints of chest pain .also stating that R [right] arm had no feeling .Res .stating she felt she was…
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 · E2022-03-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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
Based on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was served under sanitary conditions when 6 of 17 staff members (Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1, #2, #3 and #4, Registered Nurse (RN) #1, and the Life Enrichment Coordinator) touched foods with their bare hands and failed to perform hand hygiene for 13 of 88 sampled residents (Resident #15, #22, #28, #38, #40, #46, #48, #58, #64, #69, #82, #84, and #337) observed during dining. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Dining Service, dated 8/23/2017, revealed .During delivery of the dining service the staff will .prevent the eating surfaces from coming in contact with staff clothing .Handle cups/glasses on the outside of the container .Handle knives, forks, and spoons by the handles .Keeping their hands away from their hair and face when handling food . Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Hand Hygiene, revealed .All staff will perform proper hand hygiene procedures to prevent the spread of infection to other personnel, residents .This applies to all staff…
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 · D2022-03-11 · 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 Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) User Guide for Medicaid Certified Nursing Facilities, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to resubmit a PASRR after the resident had the addition of a new mental health diagnosis for 3 of 12 sampled residents (Resident #17, #39, and #64) reviewed for PASRR. The findings include: Review of the PASRR User Guide for Medicaid Certified Nursing Facilities, dated 12/11/2018, revealed .Resident Review--you will submit the Level I if the individual has .a significant change in status .Potential Outcomes--PASRR Level II . Review of the medical record, revealed Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Lack of Coordination, Atrial Fibrillation, and Insomnia. Review of the Physician's Orders dated 12/15/2021, revealed .Depakote Tablet Delayed Release 250 mg [milligram] .by mouth at bedtime for Anticonvulsant .Depakote Tablet Delayed Release 500 mg .by mouth for at bedtime for…
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 · D2022-03-11 · 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 policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to obtain a Physician's Order for oxygen therapy for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #386) reviewed for respiratory services. The findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled, POLICY Oxygen Administration, revealed .Oxygen is administered under orders of a physician . Review of the medical record, revealed Resident #386 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Pneumonia, Asthma, and Dependence on Supplemental Oxygen. Review of the medical record, revealed there was not a Physician's Order for oxygen. Review of the Baseline Care Plan dated 3/4/2022, revealed .Oxygen therapy - while a resident . Review of the Nurse's notes dated 3/4/2022, revealed .new admit .on O2 [oxygen] at 4L [liters] . Observation in the resident's room on 3/7/2022 at 4:22 PM, 3/8/2022 at 5:00 PM, 3/9/2022 at 8:24 AM and 11:05 AM, and 3/10/22 at 8:19 AM and 9:55 PM,…
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 · D2022-03-11 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were labeled and stored appropriately when opened multidose bottles did not have an open date and medications were stored past their expiration date in 1 of 4 medication storage areas (400 Hall Medication Cart) and when unsecured medications were observed 1 of 60 resident rooms (Resident #336's room). The findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Medication Storage, revealed .It is the policy of this facility to ensure all medications housed on our premises will be stored in the pharmacy and/or medication rooms .All drugs and biologicals will be stored in locked compartments .The pharmacy and all medication rooms are routinely inspected .for discontinued, outdated .medications . Observation in the resident's room on 3/7/2022 at 10:49 and 4:53 PM, and 3/8/2022 at 12:55 PM and 7:12 PM, revealed an Albuterol Sulfate inhaler on Resident #336's bedside table. Observation of the 400 Hall Medication Cart on 3/8/2022 at 5:45 PM, revealed for following: a. 1 opened and…
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 · D2022-03-11 · 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 policy review, service agreement, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate medical records for medication orders, medication administration, diagnoses, and discontinued medications for 2 of 22 sampled residents (Resident #17 and #386) reviewed. The findings include: Review of the facility's titled, Physicians Orders, dated 12/2017, revealed .Physician orders are obtained to provide a clear direction in the care of the resident .When receiving an order .repeat the order to clarify and ensure the following necessary information is received .Dosage .Route of administration .Diagnosis for medication . Review of the .[Named Behavioral Health Services] .AGREEMENT . dated 6/5/2019, revealed .Provide Psychological and/or Psychiatric .as available to the residents of the Facility .Provide psychiatric medication management .Maintain all respective medical record documentation including assessment and progress notes in accordance with the Facility's established Medical Record…
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 AHAVA HEALTHCARE — 16 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 | 2 of 5 | 2.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.1 | -1.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
The other 15 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCE ASSOCIATES LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 10% | since 04/28/2017 |
| LABIN, SHIYA | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 8% | since 04/28/2017 |
| NEUMAN, BENJAMIN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 10% | since 04/28/2017 |
| NIEDERMAN, ANSHEL | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | 30% | since 04/28/2017 |
| CARTER, ALYSEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/27/2025 |
| GAYHEART, BRANDY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/27/2025 |
| EISEN, MENASHE | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/27/2025 |
| PHILIPSON, BENT | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/27/2025 |
| PHILIPSON, GABRIELLE | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/27/2025 |
| PHILIPSON, RAQUEL | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/27/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 10 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.
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 $1.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% 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.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. 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, FY2023). 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
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 445433. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-29, 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.