No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Signature Healthcare Of Greeneville

106 Holt Court, Greeneville, TN 37743 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 154 certified beds · (423) 639-0213 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (423) 639-0213 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citations on record (F0600, F0602) — most recent Jun 20241 actual-harm citation$9,419 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
Worth asking about
  • it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0602) — most recent Jun 2024
  • it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • the CMS record shows $9,419 in federal fines (most recent 2024-06-06)
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 2 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★ 2/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
223 N Main St · (423) 639-2103 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
239 W Summer St · (423) 638-4711 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
605 W Church St
Park
121 Monument Ave · (423) 638-3551 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 3 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 3 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 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.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased14.9%14.0%15.4%typical
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight3.9%6.1%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder2.1%0.7%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.3%1.8%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms47.2%13.8%6.5%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.9%3.4%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened18.2%17.2%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication37.1%31.7%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine99.0%94.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers8.2%5.0%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control21.1%20.0%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table17.8%16.8%17.1%typical
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication1.2%1.7%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine96.5%79.8%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission31.1%22.6%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit10.5%11.2%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.041.671.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.101.561.80better

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.

57.7% 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 146 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

57.7%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
61.1%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.45U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.18hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.21hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.05hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 61.1% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 54 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 0.45 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 76% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF57.7%CMS range 48.7–66.351.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.8%CMS range 8.6–15.210.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge61.1%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge61.1%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge53.7%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting90.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened3.9%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.4%CMS range 3.8–10.47.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.021.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.44
RN hours/ resident / day
1.20
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.07
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.71
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.13
RN hoursweekends
37.6%
Total nursing turnover
42.9%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 154 beds and averages 107.9 residents a day — about 70% occupied, or roughly 46 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.71 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.44 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.07 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 3.26 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.90 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.57 to 0.13 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 38% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

2
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-03-18)
3
at the previous standard inspection (2022-08-24)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Actual harm · G2024-06-06 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY 6. Review of the medical records and facility investigation documentation revealed a resident to resident altercation occurred between Resident #1 and Resident #6 on 4/27/2024. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia, GAD, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and Gout. Review of quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #1 scored a 5 on the BIMS assessment, which indicated severe cognitive impairment and required supervision with transfers and walking. The resident exhibited no negative moods or behaviors. Review of the Nurse's Progress Notes for Resident #1 dated 4/27/2024 at 8:19 PM revealed .Notified by staff that at approximately 6:10 PM [Resident #1] was propelling in wheelchair by room [Resident #6's room] .[Resident #6] who was walking behind his wheelchair then hit him [Resident #1] open handed on the left side of his face .no injuries noted .will continue to monitor . Review of a skin assessment document…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-18 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolated
    Ensure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
    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 interviews, the facility failed to administer a continuous enteral feeding (liquid nutrition provided by a tube inserted into the abdomen) as ordered by the physician for 1 resident (Resident #61) of 1 resident reviewed for continuous enteral feedings.The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Gastrostomy Feeding [enteral feeding] Guidelines, dated 2/7/2023, revealed .Verify the correct formula .Review of the facility's policy titled, Physicians Orders, dated 1/30/2026, revealed .It is the standard of this facility that physician orders are followed .Licensed Nurses .are expected to follow physician's orders .Review of the medical record revealed Resident #61 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Multiple Sclerosis, Dysphagia, Functional Quadriplegia, Gastrostomy Status (a tube inserted into the abdomen for the administration of feeding), and Unspecified Severe Protein-Calorie Malnutrition. Review…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to offer hand hygiene assistance to 4 residents (Residents #120, #122, #111, and #11) prior to meals of 4 residents observed during meal service on 1 of 5 units observed for meal tray distribution. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Assistance with Meals, revised 5/5/2025, revealed .Facility staff will assist residents with setup and meal preparations as needed to include offering resident to wash their hands prior to meal with washcloth, hand sanitizer or provided toilette . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #120 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Spinal Stenosis, Unspecified Lack of Coordination, Chronic Kidney Disease, and Other Recurrent Depressive Disorders. Review of the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment for Resident #120 dated 3/13/2026, revealed the resident scored a 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-06-06 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolated
    Protect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
    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 investigation review, personnel file review, and interview, the facility failed to protect a resident's rights to be free from misappropriation and/or exploitation when money totaling $600.00 was taken from 1 resident (Resident #34) of 8 sampled residents reviewed for misappropriation. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation of Property, revised on 10/17/2022, revealed .It is the organizations intention to prevent the occurrence of abuse, neglect and misappropriation of property .and to assure that all alleged violations of federal or state laws .are investigated and reported immediately . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Functional Quadriplegia, Hypertension, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and Heart Disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #34 scored a 15 on…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-06-06 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely 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 2. The facility failed to report an allegation of resident to resident abuse that occurred between Resident #5 and #6 on 4/11/2024 to the State Survey Agency. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Fracture of Left Femur, Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), and Dementia. Review of a quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #5 scored a 2 on the BIMS assessment, which indicated severe cognitive impairment, and exhibited inattention. The resident had physical behavioral symptoms noted. Review of the Nurse's Progress Notes for Resident #5 dated 4/11/2024, revealed the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) documented at approximately 5:35 PM, Resident #5 was in dining area propelling self in wheelchair. Resident #5 was yelling out sporadically and Resident #6 showed physical aggression towards Resident #5. Residents #5 and #6 were immediately separated and no injuries were noted. Review of the Nurse Practitioner (NP) Progress…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-08-24 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the facility policy, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to provide a clean and homelike environment in 1 resident's (Resident #64) room of 6 resident rooms observed. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Rights revised 8/16/2018, showed .All residents will be treated in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of quality of life . Review of the facility policy titled, Maintenance dated 1/2005, showed .The maintenance department is responsible for maintaining the buildings, grounds and equipment in a safe and operable manner at all times .Maintaining the building in good repair and free from hazards . Resident #64 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Unspecified Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, Unspecified Macular Degeneration, Unspecified Hearing Loss, and History of falling. Record review of Resident #64's quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] showed a brief interview 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-08-24 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to develop a care plan addressing hospice care and management for 1 resident (Resident #48) of 20 residents reviewed for care plans. The findings include: Review of a facility policy titled Hospice Program dated 5/2018, showed .plan of care will be developed and shall include directives for managing pain and other uncomfortable symptoms . Review of a facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans, dated 4/2021, showed .A person-centered Comprehensive Care Plan .Describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being . Resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Bipolar Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Depressive Disorders, and Hospice Care. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed Resident #48 was cognitively intact and received hospice services.…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-08-24 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored and administered safely for 1 resident (Resident #86) of 6 residents reviewed for medication administration, which had the potential to cause an accident, when a nurse left Resident #86's medication at the bedside unattended. The findings include: Review of facility's policy titled, Administering Medications, revised 4/2019 showed, Medications are administered in a safe .manner .as prescribed .Only person licensed .administer and document the administration of medications may do so .Residents may self-administer .medications only if the Attending Physician .has determined .capacity to do so safely . Resident #86 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Pain Syndrome, and Polyneuropathy. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed Resident #86 was cognitively intact and 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-09-05 · tag F0644 — isolated
    Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to make a referral to the state-designated authority for a Level II Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) after newly identified serious mental disorders were diagnosed for 2 residents (#48, #86) of 8 residents reviewed for PASARR. The findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia, Schizoaffective Disorder, Depression, and Hypotension. Continued review revealed diagnosis of Psychotic Disorder with Delusions was added on 7/8/19. Medical record review of the most recent PASARR Level I assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #48 had no diagnosis of mental illness. Medical record review revealed Resident #86 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of Dementia. Continued review revealed diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder was added on 1/9/19 and a diagnosis of Psychotic Disorder with Delusions was added on 5/7/19. Medical record…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2019-09-05 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop 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 review of the facility policy, medical record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for the diagnosis of Psychosis for 1 resident (#86) of 23 residents reviewed for care plans. The findings include: Review of the facility policy Comprehensive Care Plans last revised 7/19/18, revealed .revised as information about the resident and the resident's condition change . Medical record review revealed Resident #86 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of Dementia. Continued review revealed a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder was added on 1/9/19 and a diagnosis of Psychotic Disorder with Delusions was added on 5/7/19. Medical record review of a Psychiatric Initial Diagnostic Interview dated 5/7/19 revealed .seeing the patient .major depressive disorder, unspecified psychosis . Medical record review of a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #86 had diagnoses of Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, Anxiety, Depression, and Psychotic…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$9,419 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $9,419 — penalty dated 2024-06-06

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 SIGNATURE HEALTHCARE — 67 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 53.1+0.9 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.9+1.1 vs chain
Staffing 2 of 52.8-0.8 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 53.9-0.9 vs chain
The other 66 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.1★, per CMS)
1 of 5Danville Centre for Health & RehabilitationDanville, KY 1 of 5Liberty Care & Rehabilitation CenterLiberty, KY 1 of 5Mayfair ManorLexington, KY 1 of 5Signature Health Of Portland Rehab & Wellness CentPortland, TN 1 of 5Signature Healthcare Of BremenBremen, IN 1 of 5Signature Healthcare Of ErinErin, TN 1 of 5Signature Healthcare Of MuncieMuncie, IN 1 of 5Signature Healthcare Of Putnam CountyCookeville, TN 1 of 5Signature Healthcare Of Terre HauteTerre Haute, IN 1 of 5Signature Healthcare at Colonial Rehab & WellnessBardstown, KY 1 of 5Signature Healthcare at Heritage Hall Rehab & WellLawrenceburg, KY 1 of 5Sunrise Manor Nursing HomeHodgenville, KY 2 of 5Fountain Circle Care & Rehabilitation CenterWinchester, KY 2 of 5Oakview Nursing & Rehabilitation CenterCalvert City, KY 2 of 5Rockcastle Health & Rehabilitation CenterBrodhead, KY 2 of 5Signature Healthcare Of ClarksvilleClarksville, TN 2 of 5Signature Healthcare Of Fentress CountyJamestown, TN 2 of 5Signature Healthcare at North Hardin Rehab & WellnRadcliff, KY 2 of 5Signature Healthcare at Summerfield Rehab & WellneLouisville, KY 2 of 5Signature Healthcare of East LouisvilleLouisville, KY 2 of 5Signature Healthcare of ElizabethtownElizabethtown, KY 2 of 5Signature Healthcare of GeorgetownGeorgetown, KY 2 of 5Signature Healthcare of McCreary County Rehab andPine Knot, KY 2 of 5Signature Healthcare of Roanoke RapidsRoanoke Rapids, NC 2 of 5Signature Healthcare of Spencer CountyTaylorsville, KY 3 of 5Harrodsburg Health & Rehabilitation CenterHarrodsburg, KY 3 of 5Lee County Care & Rehabilitation CenterBeattyville, KY 3 of 5Morgantown Care & Rehabilitation CenterMorgantown, KY 3 of 5Pickett Care And Rehabilitation CenterByrdstown, TN 3 of 5Signature Healthcare Of ClevelandCleveland, TN 3 of 5Signature Healthcare Of Monteagle Rehab & WellnessMonteagle, TN 3 of 5Signature Healthcare Of NorfolkNorfolk, VA 3 of 5Signature Healthcare Of Ridgely Rehab&wellness CtrRidgely, TN 3 of 5Signature Healthcare Of South Pittsburg Rehab & WeSouth Pittsburg, TN 3 of 5Signature Healthcare at HillcrestOwensboro, KY 3 of 5Signature Healthcare at Jackson Manor Rehab and WeAnnville, KY 3 of 5Signature Healthcare of Chapel HillChapel Hill, NC 3 of 5Signature Healthcare of KinstonKinston, NC 3 of 5Spring City Care And Rehabilitation CenterSpring City, TN 3 of 5Westmoreland Care & Rehab CtrWestmoreland, TN

Showing 40 of 66; lowest-rated first.

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
LP CR HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 10/01/2007
AGEMO HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 10/01/2016
JJLA LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 11/01/2007
LPSNF II LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 10/01/2016
WHEATEN LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 11/01/2007
STEIER III, ELMERIndividual5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTNO PERCENTAGE PROVIDEDsince 11/01/2007
MCDOUGAL, JAMESIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 06/06/2022
HARRISON, JOHNIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 11/01/2007

5 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$11.6M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+4.0%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.4M
Related-party expense13% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 75%Medicare 7%Other / private 18%

About 75% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.4M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 13% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$292per resident / day
operating cost
$8,885per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$305per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Tennessee
$9,429/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$10,038/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,845/mo
Assisted living

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 445351. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-18, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next