The Preserve At Fairfield Glade
100 Samaritan Way, Crossville, TN 38558 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 60 certified beds · (931) 456-1576 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- 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
- nursing-staff turnover (65%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 4 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 | 33.3% | 14.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.0% | 6.1% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.8% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 7.5% | 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 | 6.9% | 3.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 43.9% | 17.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.3% | 31.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 94.6% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.6% | 5.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 27.9% | 20.0% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.6% | 16.8% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.9% | 1.7% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.4% | 79.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 15.0% | 22.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 11.2% | 11.2% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.69 | 1.67 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.03 | 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.
59.5% 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 213 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 66.0% 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 100 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 0.57 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 86% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | 59.5%CMS range 54.8–65.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.3%CMS range 7.1–13.5 | 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 | 66.0% | 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 | 56.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 59.0% | 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 | 99.2% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.8% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.8% | 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 | 6.6%CMS range 4.4–11.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.85 | 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 60 beds and averages 51.9 residents a day — about 86% occupied, or roughly 8 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 3.82 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.66 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.04 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 3.50 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.94 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.72 to 0.51 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 65% is well above 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-03 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolatedEnsure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
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, Lippincott Nursing Center website review, medical record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure basic nursing standards for the rights of medication administration and physician's orders were followed for 1 resident (Resident #26) of 7 residents reviewed for medication administration. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration Policy and Procedures, dated 6/2025, revealed Nurses prepare and administer medications, only with orders from a licensed prescriber and follow the community policies and procedures .Nurses follow the seven rights of medication administration including: Right resident, Right medication, Right dose, Right route, Right time, Right recording, and Right reason .All medication labels should be checked three (3) times with the eMAR [Electronic Medication Administration Record] prior to administration .Vital signs and blood sugar monitoring is done prior to giving medications as indicated per order .Check…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-07 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0 review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to accurately complete a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 1 resident (Resident #7) of 13 residents reviewed. The findings include: Review of the RAI Manual 3.0 dated 10/1/2023, revealed .the assessment [MDS] accurately reflects the resident's status . Medical record review revealed Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 7/27/2024 with diagnoses including Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following Cerebral Infarction, Muscle Weakness, Atherosclerotic Heart Disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Epilepsy, Diabetes Mellitus, Fracture of Lower End of Right Tibia, Fracture of Shaft of Right Tibia. Review of the Nurse's Notes for Resident #7 dated 6/18/2024 at 7:21 PM, revealed .Reason resident was hospitalized or received service at a hospital .CVA [Cardiovascular Accident] [Stroke], Right Hemiparesis, Seizure, Fall from standing .fall precautions .…
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 · E2023-05-03 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, record review, and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to address end of life care for 6 residents (Residents #20, #9, #13, #16, #27, and #34) and hearing loss for 1 resident (Resident #34) of 17 residents reviewed. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Care Plan-R/S, LTC, Therapy & Rehab, dated 9/22/2022, showed .Each resident will receive and be provided the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable well-being in accordance with the comprehensive assessment. Each resident will have an individualized, person-centered, comprehensive plan of care .will be modified to reflect the care currently required/provided for the resident .will emphasize the care .of the whole person . Resident #20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia, History of Falling, and General Anxiety Disorder. Review of a Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment…
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 · D2023-05-03 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a privacy cover was maintained for a urinary catheter drainage bag for 1 resident (Resident #34) of 5 residents reviewed for urinary catheters, and failed to provide assistance to maintain desired physical appearance for 1 resident (Resident #34) of 46 residents reviewed for dignity. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Dignity - Rehab/Skilled, revised 10/26/2022, showed .The location will promote care for residents in a manner and in an environment that maintains or enhances each resident's dignity .Grooming residents as they wish to be groomed .Refraining from practices demeaning to residents such as keeping urinary catheter bags uncovered . Resident #34 admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Dementia, Heart Failure, Retention of Urine, Neuromuscular Dysfunction of Bladder, Urogenital Implants, and Atrial Fibrillation. Review of the annual…
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 · D2023-05-03 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
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 medical information was not visible for 1 resident (Resident #27) of 46 residents reviewed for dignity. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Dignity - Rehab/Skilled, revised 10/26/2022, showed .The location will promote care for residents in a manner and in an environment that maintains or enhances each resident's dignity .Maintaining an environment in which there are no signs posted in residents' rooms .able to be seen by other residents and/or visitors that include confidential clinical or personal information . Resident #27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Unspecified Dementia, Alzheimer's Disease, Delusional Disorders, and Chronic Kidney Disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed Resident #27 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) assessment score of 12, which indicated 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 · D2023-05-03 · 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 interviews, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of employee to resident abuse was reported immediately to the facility administration and to the State Agency (SA) within two hours, in accordance with Federal Law, for 1 resident (#147) of 25 residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Abuse And Neglect-Rehab/Skilled, Therapy & Rehab, revised 12/23/2020 showed .Alleged or suspected violations involving .abuse .will be reported immediately to the administrator .other officials in accordance with state law .In the absence of the administrator from the location, the following individuals have the administrative authority of the administrator for purposes of immediate reporting of alleged violations: the director of nursing services or the supervisor of social services . Resident #147 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Left Hip Fracture, Chronic Kidney Disease, Dementia, 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 · D2023-05-03 · 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 the facility policy review, medical record review, and interviews, the facility failed to investigate an allegation of abuse timely for 1 resident (#147) of 25 residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse And Neglect-Rehab/Skilled, therapy & Rehab, revised 12/23/2023, showed .If an employee received an allegation of abuse .the employee will then report the allegation to a supervisor .The .nurse will be notified immediately, assess the situation .complete an initial investigation . Resident #147 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Left Hip Fracture, Chronic Kidney Disease, Dementia, and Cerebral Infarction. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] showed Resident #147 scored 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Review of a Care Plan note dated 4/18/2023, showed .up with extensive assist X 2 [times 2] with a stand aid .alert and oriented .Resident is…
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 · D2023-05-03 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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 record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to implement a wound care intervention for 1 resident (Resident #7) of 3 residents reviewed for wounds. The findings include: Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia, Adult Failure to Thrive, Diabetes Mellitus, and Palliative Care. Review of a 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed Resident #7 had severe cognitive impairment and was at risk for pressure ulcers. Further review showed the resident had 0 pressure ulcers on admission. Review of the comprehensive care plan initiated 11/1/2022 showed .potential for pressure ulcer development .nutritional problem r/t [related to] FTT [Failure to Thrive], T2DM [Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus] .hospice care . Intervention added on 11/14/2022 included .provide pillows to float heels while in bed .bilateral heel boots while in bed . Review of an order summary report for Resident #7 dated 11/14/2022, showed .Cleanse left inner foot wound 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 · D2023-05-03 · 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 record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to implement interventions to prevent accidents for 1 resident (Resident #20) of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. The findings include: Resident #20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia, History of Falling, and General Anxiety Disorder. Review of an annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] showed Resident #20 had moderate cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance of 2 staff with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, and toilet use. Resident #20 had a history of 1 fall since the last assessment. Review of Resident #20's care plan dated 2/17/2023 showed the resident was at risk for falls with interventions of a pad alarm to bed and tab alarm to chair to be used to alert staff and prevent accidents. During observation on 5/1/2023 at 12:16 PM, Resident #20 was observed in a common room for lunch, seated in a wheelchair with no alarms. During an observation and interview on 5/2/2023 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-05-03 · 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 facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were secured in 1 of 4 medication carts and in 1 of 4 treatment carts observed. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, .Medications: Acquisition Receiving Dispensing and Storage, dated 3/2/2023, showed, .Medications will be stored in a locked medication cart, drawer, or cupboard . During an observation on 5/2/2023 at 7:48 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) #1 had left the medication cart unattended, with stock medications stored on top of the medication cart, while going to administer medications. During an observation and interview on 5/2/2023 at 8:10 AM, RN #1 had left the medication cart unattended, with medications stored on top of the medication cart, while going to administer medications. RN #1 stated she stored stock medications on top of the cart to prevent wear and tear on the medication cart drawers and to save time. RN #1 stated she felt like the stock medications on top of the cart was secure because she was at the medication cart most of the time. RN #1…
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 · D2019-11-14 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 adequately monitor and report an irregularity to the physician for 1 resident (#27) of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance, Restless Leg Syndrome, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and Anxiety Disorder. Medical record review of the Order Summary Report, dated 11/13/19, revealed .mirtazapine [an antidepressant medication used to stimulate the appetite] tablet 7.5 mg [milligrams] .order date .4/24/19 . Medical record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating Resident #27 was cognitively intact. Further review revealed the resident received an antidepressant daily. Medical record review of a Nutritional Status note, dated 8/30/19, revealed…
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.
- No harm found · C2019-11-14 · tag F0655 — widespreadCreate 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 medical record review and interview the facility failed to provide evidence of documentation in the medical record indicating a Baseline Care Plan summary was given to the resident and/or resident representative for 6 Residents (#1, #16, #21, #22, #34, and #195) and failed to develop a Baseline Care Plan timely for 1 Resident (#16) of 6 residents reviewed for Baseline Care Plans. The findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Nondisplaced Fracture Right Hip, and Anxiety Disorder. Medical record review of the Baseline Care Plan dated 11/1/19 revealed no documented evidence Resident #1 and/or the resident representative had received a summary of the Baseline Care Plan. Medical record review revealed Resident #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Malignant Neoplasm of Colon, Encounter Palliative Care, Pulmonary Embolism, and Depressive Disorder. Medical record review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- 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 LIBERTY SENIOR LIVING — 37 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 | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
The other 36 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.8★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIBERTY SENIOR LIVING LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 10/01/2025 |
| BORK, MATTHEW | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2025 |
| PURVIS, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2025 |
| COTTON, BARRY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2025 |
| COX, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2025 |
| MCNEILL, ROBERT | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/17/2026 |
| OLIVER, ANNA | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/05/2026 |
| PURVIS, JENNY | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/05/2026 |
| JOHN A MCNEILL JR 2014 IRREVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2025 |
| LDP PROPERTIES I LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2025 |
| LIBERTY LIVING MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2025 |
| LIBERTY PROPERTIES OF FAIRFIELD GLADE, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2025 |
| RONALD B AND CYNTHIA J MCNEIL 2014 IRREVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2025 |
| MCNEILL, JOHN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2025 |
| MCNEILL, RONALD | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2025 |
| WILSON, JEFFREY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
6 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 $2.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% 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 445506. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-03, 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.