Signature Healthcare Of Putnam County
278 Dry Valley Rd, Cookeville, TN 38506 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 175 certified beds · (931) 537-6524 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 3 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
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 | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 4 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 | 13.0% | 14.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 8.3% | 6.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.6% | 1.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 8.3% | 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 | 2.4% | 3.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.7% | 17.2% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.6% | 31.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.9% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.7% | 5.0% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 16.1% | 20.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 19.7% | 16.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.7% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.9% | 79.8% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.3% | 22.6% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.7% | 11.2% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.57 | 1.67 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.30 | 1.56 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
48.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 293 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 49.5% 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 97 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 0.43 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 73% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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 | 48.0%CMS range 42.5–53.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 13.6%CMS range 11.1–16.8 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than 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 | 49.5% | 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 | 47.4% | 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 | 43.3% | 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 | 94.0% | 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 | 99.0% | 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 | 95.8% | 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 | 0.6% | 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 | 1.8% | 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 | 8.7%CMS range 6.3–11.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.09 | 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 175 beds and averages 139.4 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 36 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.67 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.48 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.20 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 3.12 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.89 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.54 to 0.32 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 41% 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 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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 3 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-03 · 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 policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to revise a care plan to include fall interventions after 2 falls for 1 resident (Resident #40) of 4 care plans reviewed for falls. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, revised 2/9/2024, revealed .facility will develop and implement a person centered care plan for each resident, that includes measurable objectives and time frames to meet resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs .maintains a comprehensive care plan participate in the development of and reviewing and revising of the Comprehensive Care Plan . Review of the facility policy titled, Falls, revised 1/31/2025, revealed .A comprehensive Care Plan will be implemented based on the resident's risk for falls .interventions will be revised as applicable, with each new review . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Hypertension,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-03 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to timely implement interventions to reduce the risk of falls for 1 resident (Resident #43) of 4 residents reviewed for falls. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Falls, revised 1/31/2025, revealed .ensure the facility provides an environment that is as free from accident hazards, as possible over which the facility has control to prevent avoidable falls .based on the resident's risk for falls .interventions specific to each resident to attempt to reduce the risk . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #43 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia, Altered Mental Status, Muscle Weakness, Abnormal Walking and Mobility, and Mood Disorder. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #43 scored a 3 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment which indicated severe cognitive impairment 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 · D2025-04-03 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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, facility documentation review, and interviews the facility failed to prevent loss or diversion of controlled medications (narcotics) for 1 resident (Resident #7) of 65 sampled residents reviewed for misappropriation of narcotics. The facility was cited as past non-compliance. Non-compliance began on [DATE] and ended on [DATE]. The facility is not required to submit a Plan of Correction for F-755. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Controlled Medications, dated [DATE], revealed .The facility will ensure Controlled Medications are handled, stored, disposed of, and recordkeeping is in place in accordance with federal, state, and other applicable laws and regulations .At each shift change or when keys are rendered, a physical inventory of all controlled medication is conducted by two staff members who are either licensed nurses, medication technicians, or appropriate staff per state regulations and is documented on the controlled…
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 · F2023-05-18 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — widespreadProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility documentation, observation, and interview, the facility failed to have sufficient staffing for 1 of 4 (500) halls. The findings include: Review of the undated facility documentation revealed the 500 hall had 11 assisted diners (residents who required assistance with meals). Review of the facility schedule dated 5/15/2023, revealed 2 Certified Nurse Aides (CNA) and 1 CNA scheduled from 12:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Observations on the 500 hall on 5/15/2023 at 12:08 PM, revealed the tray cart arrived to 500 hall. Observations at the 500 hall nurse's station on 5/15/2023 at 12:24 PM, revealed Resident #114 was seated in a wheel chair in front of the nurse's station. Observations in the 500 hall dining room on 5/15/2023 at 12:25 PM, revealed CNA #8 was assisting one resident with the lunch meal while another resident was seated in a wheelchair. Observations in the 500 hall dining room on 5/15/2023 at 12:51 PM, revealed Resident #114 was assisted with dining by a CNA. During an interview on 5/15/2023 at 12:37 PM, CNA #8 stated the 500 hall was her assigned hall. CNA #8 stated…
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 · F2023-05-18 · tag F0802 — failed to prepare enough nourishing food — widespreadProvide sufficient support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service.
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 document review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to serve food in a timely manner to 9 of 123 (Resident #9, #14, #15, #16, #39, #92, and #113) residents who ate food prepared by the facility. The findings include: Review of the undated meal times sheet revealed the serving times for meals for the dining rooms and the halls revealed breakfast was served to the main dining room (DR) at 7:00 AM, 100 hall 1st meal tray cart at 7:15 AM, hall 300/400 at 7:30 AM, hall 200 meal tray cart at 7:45 AM, 500 hall DR and hall at 8:00 AM, hall 100 2nd meal tray cart at 8:15 AM, and hall 200 2nd meal tray cart at 8:30 AM. Lunch was scheduled for the main DR at 11:30 AM, hall 100 1st meal tray cart at 11:45 AM, hall 300/400 at 12:00 PM, hall 200 1st meal tray cart at 12:15 PM, 500 hall DR 12:30 PM, hall 100 2nd meal tray cart at 12:45 PM and hall 200 2nd meal tray cart at 1:00 PM. Dinner was scheduled for the main DR at 5:00 PM, hall 100 1st meal tray cart at 5:15 PM, hall 300/400 at 5:30 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 · F2023-05-18 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — widespreadEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to maintain appropriate temperatures (temps) for food served on a test tray dated 5/15/2023. The facility also failed to maintain appropriate temps for food on the steam table requiring re-heating and a delay in food service. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Food: Preparation Policy 016, undated revealed .the Dining Service Director/Cook(s) will be responsible for food preparation techniques which minimize the amount of time that food items are exposed to techniques which minimize the amount of time that food items are exposed to temperatures greater that 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and/or less than 135 degrees F or per state regulation .all foods will be held at appropriate temperatures greater that 135 degrees F .for hot holding and less that 41 degrees F for cold food holding .temperatures .for foods will be recorded at the time of service . Observations in the kitchen on 5/15/2023 at 4:45 PM, revealed the Regional Food Service Manager (FSM) for the contracted food service…
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 · F2023-05-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, facility maintenance documentation, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide proper storage dating of foods. The facility also failed to provide proper sanitation of equipment after use and maintenance of equipment in the kitchen. The facility further failed to provide appropriately dated foods and sanitized equipment in 1 of 3 (500 hall) nutrition rooms. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Food Storage: Cold Foods Policy 019 revealed .all time/temperature control for .foods, frozen and refrigerated will be appropriately stored .foods will be stored wrapped or in covered containers, labeled and dated and arranged in a manner to prevent cross contamination . Review of the facility policy titled, Ice policy 021, undated, revealed .the Dining Services Director will coordinate with the Maintenance Director to ensure that the ice machine will be disconnected, cleaned, and sanitized quarterly and as needed or according to manufacturer guidelines .the exterior of the ice machine will be cleaned weekly .ice bins will…
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 · E2023-05-18 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor 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
Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to serve silverware for 1 of 2 carts on the 500 hall during a meal. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Rights reviewed 4/17/2023 revealed .When providing care and services, the stakeholders will respect the resident's individuality and value their input by providing them a dignified existence, through self-determination and communication with access to persons and services inside and outside the facility . Observations on the 500 hall on 5/15/2023 at 5:38 PM, revealed the first tray cart on the floor had 18 trays. Two of the trays on the cart had silverware, and the other 16 trays did not. Continued observation revealed Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #9 had to go upstairs to the kitchen and retrieve silverware for the other trays on the cart. During an interview on 5/15/2023 at 6:34 PM, the Regional Food Service Manager (FSM) stated the staff had pulled the silverware off the trays because the cart was for residents eating in the dining room. The FSM thought the 500 hall…
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 · E2023-05-18 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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 provide a homelike environment for 2 of 5 (100 and 500) halls. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Rights reviewed by the facility on 4/17/2023 revealed .All residents will be treated in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of quality of life . Review of the undated facility policy titled, Housekeeping In-Service revealed .Spot clean walls: Vertical surface are not completely wiped down daily-but must be spot cleaned daily. Walls -especially by trash cans and light switches and door handles -will need special attention .Clean and sanitize sink and tub: The sink includes: the sink fixtures, pipes, under the sink, mirror and light above the mirror . Observations on the 500 halls on 5/15/2023 at 10:27 AM, revealed two vents located at the nurse's station and one vent located in front of the nutrition room were covered with black debris. Observations in room [ROOM…
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 before2023-05-18 · 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 policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plan for 1 of 47 (Resident #22) sampled residents. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, dated 7/19/2018, revealed, .Care plans are ongoing and revised as information about the resident and the resident's condition change .The nurse/Interdisciplinary Team is responsible for the review and updating of care plans. The care plan should reflect the current status of the resident and be updated with changes on the residents' status . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Unspecified Protein-Calorie Malnutrition, Unspecified Dementia, without Behavioral Disturbance, Psychotic Disturbance, Mood Disturbance, Anxiety, Muscle Weakness (generalized), and Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease without Esophagitis. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan dated 4/26/2023 for Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-05-18 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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 assess and treat impaired skin integrity for 1 of 1 (Resident #4) sampled residents observed during the initial tour. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Skin Integrity Policy reviewed by the facility 7/11/2022 revealed, .A resident with impaired skin integrity receives necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent avoidable skin integrity issues from developing .The licensed nurse shall initiate applicable Skin Integrity documentation if a new area of impairment is identified .In addition, to ongoing observations of skin integrity, nursing stakeholders shall observe the skin for areas of impairment with bathing, daily dressing, and peri care notify and notify the nurse if an area is identified . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #4 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with…
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 before2023-05-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to supervise intrusive wandering for 1 of 6 (Resident #41) sampled residents and failed to provide supervision for transport of 1 of 1 (Resident #60) sampled residents. The findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #41 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Dementia with Behavioral Disturbances, Altered Mental Status, and Alzheimer's Disease. Review of the nursing progress notes dated 2/22/2023, revealed Resident #41 was found one evening lying in the floor of another resident's room, appearing to be asleep with her knees slightly bent without distress. Review of the nursing progress notes dated 2/25/2023, revealed Resident #41 was ambulating ad lib (without previous preparation) into another resident's room per normal, and was restless with anxiety and fidgeting. Review of the nursing progress notes dated 3/8/2023, revealed Resident #41 continued to have intrusive wandering with repetitive opening…
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 · D2023-05-18 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure safe handling, cleaning, and storage of breathing treatment and CPAP/BiPap (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure) equipment for 1 of 4 (Resident #44) sampled residents and failed to properly date and store oxygen equipment for 2 of 4 (Residents #66 and #77) sampled residents observed with oxygen therapy. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled .Departmental (Respiratory Therapy) - Prevention of Infection Revised November 2011 .The purpose of this procedure is to guide prevention of infection associated with respiratory therapy tasks and equipment, including ventilators among resident and staff .Infection Control Considerations Related to Oxygen Administration .Obtain equipment (i.e., oxygen tubing, reservoir, and distilled water)Change the oxygen cannulae and tubing every seven (7) days, or as needed .Infection Control Considerations Related to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2018-04-25 · 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 develop and implement a baseline care plan for the care and maintenance of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) for 1 resident (Resident #250) of 1 residents reviewed for PICC lines of 30 residents reviewed. The findings included: Review of the facility policy Baseline Plan of Care, not dated, revealed .development and implementation of the Baseline plan of care will start at admission and within the first 48 hours .include the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for a resident including, but not limited to .goals based on admission orders .physician orders . Medical record review revealed Resident #250 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Osteomyelitis (bone infection) Requiring Antibiotic Intravenous (IV) Therapy. Medical record review of the Nursing admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #250 was admitted to the facility with a PICC line…
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 SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE — 67 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 | 1 of 5 | 3.1 | -2.1 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.9 | -1.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
The other 66 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 66; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SHC LP HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 05/01/2014 |
| ASBR HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2018 |
| JJLA LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2014 |
| LPSNF LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2014 |
| WHEATEN LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2014 |
| STEIER III, ELMER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 05/01/2014 |
| BOONE, PAULA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/16/2023 |
| HARRISON, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 05/01/2014 |
5 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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 445136. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2023-05-18, 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.