Laughlin Health Care Center
801 E McKee St, Greeneville, TN 37743 · Government - Federal · 90 certified beds · (423) 638-9226 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0569)
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- a high number of inspection citations overall (16) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $9,770 in federal fines (most recent 2023-10-05)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (63%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 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, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 3 to 1 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 | 15.9% | 14.0% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 9.0% | 6.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.2% | 0.7% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 13.8% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.0% | 3.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 34.6% | 31.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.0% | 5.0% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 15.0% | 20.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.3% | 16.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.7% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 79.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.3% | 22.6% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.7% | 11.2% | 12.0% | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
53.2% 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 51 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 46.4% 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 28 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 0.61 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 89% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 18% 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 | 53.2%CMS range 40.2–65.2 | 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 | 11.1%CMS range 7.1–17.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 46.4% | 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 | 71.4% | 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 | 53.6% | 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 | 97.5% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 5.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 5.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.0%CMS range 3.7–12.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.82 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 90 beds and averages 48.5 residents a day — about 54% occupied, or roughly 42 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.46 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.78 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.65 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 2.98 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.65 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.89 to 0.49 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 63% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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 2 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.
16 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2023-10-05 · 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, facility post fall investigation review, and interviews, the facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plan related to falls for 3 residents (Resident #14, #15, and #17) of 3 residents reviewed for falls which resulted in actual harm to Resident #14 when the resident fell and sustained a laceration to the left eye and required the area to have steri strips (wound closure tape) placed to close the wound, failed to revise the comprehensive care plan related to a wound for Resident #14 of 2 residents reviewed for wounds, failed to revise the comprehensive care plan related to a wander guard (a safety device used for high elopement risk) for 2 residents (Resident #15 and #17), failed to revise the comprehensive care plan for new diagnoses for 1 resident (Resident #15), and failed to revise the comprehensive care plan for a functional decline and restraint use for 1 resident (Resident #17) of 12 care plans reviewed. The findings include: Review of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2023-10-05 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, facility post fall review, and interviews, the facility failed to prevent accidents related to falls for 1 resident (Resident #14) of 3 residents reviewed for falls when a new fall intervention was not implemented which resulted in actual harm to Resident #14 when the resident fell and sustained a laceration to the left eye and required steri strips (wound closure tape) to close the wound, and failed to complete thorough fall investigations for 1 resident (Resident #17) of 3 residents reviewed for falls. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Fall Risks, revised 8/4/2023, showed .PURPOSE .To assist .in identifying residents at risk for falls and implementing appropriate interventions .Interventions are implemented for fall prevention, decreasing the risk of falls and harm from falls .Each fall will be evaluated .with interventions developed to reduce risk of recurrent fall (s) . Review of the facility policy titled, Care…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-10-05 · 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, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain sanitary kitchen equipment and failed to replace damaged kitchen equipment that had not been maintained in a good working condition, which had the potential to affect 27 of 27 residents. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Cleaning of Food and Nonfood Contact Surfaces, dated 1/2023, showed .The food-contact surfaces of all cooking equipment shall be kept free of encrusted grease deposits and other accumulated soil .Nonfood contact surfaces of utensils and equipment must be made of materials that are safe, corrosion resistant .smooth and easily cleanable, and maintained in good condition. Nonfood contact surfaces of equipment, such as handles .gaskets .exterior .shall be cleaned .to keep the equipment free of accumulation of dust, dirt, food particles, and other debris . Observation of the kitchen with the Food Services Lead Aide (FSLA) on 10/2/2023 at 10:15 AM, showed the following: Convection ovens (top and bottom oven) had dark-brown, crusty debris on 4 of 4 of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-10-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff performed proper hand hygiene while delivering meal trays and during meal assistance in dining room. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Hand Hygiene, revised 12/3/2021, showed .To outline indications for hand hygiene and correct procedure for performing hand hygiene in order to assist in preventing healthcare associated infections .When to perform hand hygiene .Hands must be washed with soap and water or alcohol hand gel used .after having direct contact with patients or their surroundings .After contact with inanimate objects .in the vicinity of the patient . During an observation of dining on 10/2/2023 from 12:17 PM-12:23 PM, showed the Wound Care Nurse retrieved a meal tray from the meal cart, served the tray to Resident #4, walked into the dining room to a wooden cabinet, opened the drawer, and retrieved a packet of coffee creamer. Further observation showed the Wound Care Nurse walked back to the food cart, reached in, retrieved a coffee cup, poured a cup of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-05 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure 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 review of the Resident Assessment Instrument Manual 3.0 (RAI), medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to accurately complete Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 4 residents (Residents #5, #7, #15, and #17) of 12 residents reviewed for MDS assessments. The findings include: Review of the RAI Manual 3.0 dated 10/2019, showed .The MDS contains items that reflect the acuity level of the resident, including diagnoses, treatments, and an evaluation of the resident's functional status .The RAI process .require that .the assessment accurately reflects the resident's status .an accurate assessment requires collecting information from multiple sources .Those sources must include the resident and direct care staff on all shifts, and should also include the resident's medical record, physician, and family, guardian, or significant other as appropriate or acceptable . Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Dysphagia, Vascular Dementia, Hemiplegia 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 · D2023-10-05 · 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, observation, and interview, the facility failed to maintain or enhance resident dignity and respect during dining observation when 2 Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) assisted 4 residents (Residents #1, #7, #14, and #22) simultaneously (at the same time) of 7 residents observed for assistance with dining. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Feeding The Resident, revised 5/2014, showed .Identify residents that need assist with eating or need encouragement .Feed residents who are unable to feed selves . Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Rights & [And] Responsibilities, revised 7/9/2021, showed .You [Resident] have the right to .be treated with dignity and respect . Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia, Psychotic Disturbance, Anxiety, and Major Depressive Disorder. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed Resident #1 was rarely/never understood and was totally…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-05 · tag F0569 — isolatedNotify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the facility's Resident Fund Statement, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the trust fund accounts for 2 residents (Residents #14 and #24) of 7 residents with trust fund accounts reviewed did not exceed the $2000.00 Supplemental Security Income (SSI) resource limit. The findings include: Resident #14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the facility's Resident Fund Statement report dated 7/31/2023 - 9/30/2023 revealed Resident #14 had a current balance of $3,008.48. Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the facility's Resident Fund Statement report dated 7/31/2023 - 9/30/2023 revealed Resident #24 had a current balance of $6,220.60. During an interview on 10/05/23 at 11:34 AM, the Corporate Business Office Account Representative (CBOAR) confirmed the Resident Trust Funds are to be maintained with a balance of less than $2000.00 and Residents #14 and #24 exceeded the balance.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-05 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 follow the policy for restraints for 2 residents (Resident #7 and #17) of 5 residents reviewed for restraints. The findings include: The facility policy titled, Restraints, revised 8/5/2022, showed .Physical Restraint: is defined as any manual method, physical or mechanical device/equipment that .Cannot be removed easily by the resident .Restricts the resident's freedom or movement or normal access to his/her body .The assessment is documented and use of the device is added to the plan of care .Restraints are discontinued as early as possible based on an individualized resident assessment and re-evaluation. Consideration whether to implement a restraint should weigh the risks of using a restraint against the risks presented by the resident's behavior. Reduction of risks associated with restraint use will be accomplished through preventative strategies, innovative alternatives, process improvement, planning, education,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-05 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, record review, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan to address restraint usage for 1 resident (Resident #7) out of 12 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Restraints, dated 5/5/2022, showed .defined as any manual method, physical or mechanical device .cannot be removed easily by the resident .restricts the resident's freedom of movement .use of the device is added to the plan of care . Review of the facility's policy titled, Care Plan/ Comprehensive Assessment, dated 11/4/2022, showed .Residents will have a comprehensive assessment that determines their functional status .comprehensive care plan will be developed that includes objectives, measurable goals and timetables to meet their medical, mental, and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment . Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Spastic…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-05 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolatedEnsure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
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 provide services to prevent further decline in functional status for 1 resident (Resident #17) of 17 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL). The findings include: Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's, Anxiety, and Muscle Weakness. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed Resident #17 required extensive assistance of 1 person with bed mobility, locomotion, and personal hygiene; required extensive assistance of 2 persons with transfers, dressing, toileting, and bathing; and required supervision with eating. Resident #17 did not receive therapy services. Review of a quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], showed Resident #17 was severely cognitively impaired for daily decision making, required total dependence of 2 persons with bed mobility, dressing, toileting, personal hygiene, and bathing; required extensive assistance of 2 persons…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-05 · 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 and interview, the facility failed to provide an evaluation and rationale for the continued use of a PRN (as needed) antianxiety medication beyond 14 days for 1 resident (Resident #17) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The findings include: Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Anxiety and Muscle Weakness. Review of a pharmacy recommendation note dated 8/15/2023, showed .Phase 2 limits PRN psychotropic medications to 14 days, unless the prescriber believes it is appropriate to extend the order .must document the following required information .if the PRN psychotropic medication is continued .Why the medication is needed on a PRN basis .What is the benefit of the PRN medication .Duration of PRN continuation/ reevaluation of medication . Further review showed the Medical Director had disagreed with the recommendations with no rationale documented. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-05 · tag F0770 — failed to provide lab services — isolatedProvide timely, quality laboratory services/tests to meet the needs of residents.
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 ensure laboratory (lab) tests were obtained for 1 resident (Resident #20) of 5 residents reviewed for laboratory services. The findings include: Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Vitamin D Deficiency, and Hypothyroidism. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed Resident #20 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment and had an active diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus. Review of the comprehensive care plan revised 10/4/2023, showed Resident #20 had problems of Hypothyroidism and Diabetes with interventions to monitor lab work as ordered. Review of a Physician's Order dated 9/8/2022, showed Resident #20 had lab orders for TSH (a lab test to measure thyroid function and medication levels), Hemoglobin (Hgb) A1C (a lab test to measure how well blood glucose levels had…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-05 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolatedDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure garbage and refuse were properly contained in 2 of 3 dumpsters (dumpster #1 and #2) and in the grease trap receptacle. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Solid Waste Disposal, dated 1/2023, showed .Garbage containers are clean .covered at all times .Place trash and garbage directly into designated receptacles .Keep lids closed on all outside trash receptacles . During an observation on 10/2/2023 at 10:43 AM, with the Food Services Lead Aide (FSLA) showed the outside dumpster area had 3 dumpsters present. 2 dumpsters (dumpster #1 and #2) for waste disposal and 1 dumpster (dumpster #3) for cardboard disposal. The area around dumpsters #1 and #2 had plastic pieces, used disposable gloves, and trash debris on the ground surrounding the dumpster area. The grease trap was 1/3 full, had one glove with presence of brownish-black, greasy debris located on the top of the receptacle, and the grease trap lid was fully open to air and elements. During an interview on 10/2/2023…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-05 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review and interview the facility failed to ensure pneumococcal vaccinations were administered to 2 residents (Resident #11 and #14) of 5 residents reviewed for vaccinations. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Immunizations-Influenza and Pneumococcal, revised 11/4/22, showed .pneumococcal immunizations will be offered to all residents .unless medically contraindicated .provide immunization .Residents over the age of sixty-five .years or older are encouraged to receive the vaccine . Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Vascular Dementia, Anxiety Disorder, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Review of a Physician Services form undated, showed .I hereby grant permission for inoculation [immunize] with the pneumonia vaccine . Further review showed the form was signed by Resident #11's Power of Attorney (POA). Review of Resident #11's immunization record showed the pneumococcal vaccine had not been…
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 before2020-01-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were followed to prevent the potential spread of infection for 1 resident ( #11) of 4 residents observed during medication administration. The findings include: Review of the facility Oral Medication, undated, .place pills/capsules in the medication cup using aseptic (Asepsis is a condition in which no living disease-causing microorganisms are present. Asepsis covers all those procedures designed to reduce the risk of bacterial, fungal or viral contamination including the gloved 'no touch') technique . Observations on 1/7/20 at 9:08 AM, at the East Hall Medication Cart, revealed LPN #1 removed an Iron 325 mg (milligram) tablet from the medication cart for Resident #11, dropped the tablet onto the medication cart, picked up the tablet with her bare hands, placed the tablet into the resident's medication cup, entered the resident's room, and administered the medication to Resident #11. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 1/8/20 at 9:47 AM, in the DON's office,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2018-12-19 · 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, observation, and interview the facility failed to properly label and date foods available for resident consumption, and failed to ensure employee and resident foods were stored separately in 2 of 2 nourishment refrigerators. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, .PANTRY ORDERS ., dated April 2001, and revised March 2006, revealed .If no date, put date on the product .Nursing department is responsible for cleaning pantry refrigerators . Interview and observation of the East wing nourishment refrigerator with the Dietary Supervisor and Registered Nurse (RN) Unit Manager #1 on 12/19/18 at 9:47 AM, in the East wing nourishment room revealed, 1 - 8 ounce opened, undated, and unlabeled chocolate milk, and 2 frozen meals unlabeled. Further interview confirmed nourishment refrigerators are used for employee and resident use, and the above items were available for resident use. Interview and observation of the [NAME] wing nourishment refrigerator with the Dietary Supervisor and RN Unit Manager #2 on 12/19/18 at 9:57 AM, in the [NAME] wing…
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
$9,770 in federal fines across 2 penalties. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $4,885 — penalty dated 2023-10-05
- $4,885 — penalty dated 2023-10-05
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2023-11-08 for 21 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to AHAVA HEALTHCARE — 16 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 1 of 5 | 2.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.6 | -1.6 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
The other 15 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LAUGHLIN OPERATIONS GROUP HOLDCO LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 05/01/2025 |
| LAUGHLIN REALTY GROUP LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2025 |
| NIEDERMAN, ANSHEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2025 |
| AHAVA HC LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2025 |
| LAIDLAW, LISA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2025 |
| TUMKUR, DEEPIKA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2025 |
| BALLAD HEALTH | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2025 |
| BLUE RIDGE MEDICAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2025 |
| MOUNTAIN STATES HEALTH ALLIANCE | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 9 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.
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 445264. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2023-10-05, 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.