Lyonsview Health And Rehabilitation Center
5837 Lyons View Pike, Knoxville, TN 37919 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 222 certified beds · (865) 584-3902 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- CMS lists it as a Special Focus candidate — not on the watch list itself, but among the homes CMS is watching because of its recent inspection history
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jul 2024
- inspectors cited 4 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (19) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $12,038 in federal fines (most recent 2024-07-24)
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (59%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 17.8% | 14.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.4% | 6.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.1% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.9% | 1.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.5% | 13.8% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.9% | 3.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 27.7% | 17.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 31.6% | 31.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 80.5% | 94.5% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.6% | 5.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.9% | 20.0% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.9% | 16.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.7% | 1.7% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 48.2% | 79.8% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.5% | 22.6% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.7% | 11.2% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.15 | 1.67 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.33 | 1.56 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
31.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 118 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 40.4% 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 104 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 0.29 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 44% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% 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 | 31.9%CMS range 23.3–41.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.1%CMS range 8.2–16.0 | 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 | 40.4% | 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 | 41.4% | 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 | 31.7% | 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 | 98.6% | 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 | 94.3% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 92.5% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.4% | 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 | 7.7% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.1%CMS range 3.7–10.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.01 | 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 222 beds and averages 165.3 residents a day — about 74% occupied, or roughly 57 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 3.55 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.21 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.01 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 3.23 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.68 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.22 to 0.19 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 59% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
19 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-07-24 · 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 documentation review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 8 (Resident #1) sampled residents reviewed for accident hazards received adequate supervision to prevent elopement (a situation where a resident leaves the premises or safe area without necessary supervision). On 12/10/2023, at approximately 10:50 PM, the facility staff observed Resident #1, a vulnerable and cognitively impaired resident with a history of wandering behaviors, outside the building next to a fence. The facility's failure to provide adequate supervision to Resident #1 resulted in Immediate Jeopardy (IJ), (a situation in which the provider's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation has caused or is likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident) for Resident #1 and placed 4 other residents identified as having the potential for elopement at risk for Immediate Jeopardy. The Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Lcited before2023-04-13 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention and U.S. Department of Housing and [NAME] Development Healthy Housing Reference Manual, job description review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served under sanitary conditions. The facility failed to maintain effective pest control in the kitchen as evidenced by the presence of live and dead roaches in the kitchen and food preparation areas which had the potential to affect all 144 residents in the facility. Deficiencies were cited resulting in an Immediate Jeopardy (a situation in which the provider's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation has caused, or is likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident). The Interim Administrator and Regional [NAME] President/Administrator (ADM#1) were notified of the Immediate Jeopardy for F812 and F925 on 4/4/2023 at 6:36 PM in 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · L2023-04-13 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — widespreadAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on review of the facility policy review, Administrator's job description, review of the facility's Medical Director Agreements, facility documentation review, and interview the facility's Administration failed to manage its resources and operating budget to maintain an effective pest control program after an invoice was not paid to the pest control company which resulted in an interruption in services from 11/30/2022 - 4/4/2023 and an outbreak of pest in the facility's kitchen. The facility's failure did not maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial wellbeing of the 144 residents residing in the facility. The Regional [NAME] President of Operations failed to address facility concerns. Deficiencies were cited resulting in an Immediate Jeopardy (a situation in which the provider's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation has caused, or is likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident). The Interim Administrator and Regional [NAME] President/Administrator (ADM #1) were notified of the Immediate Jeopardy for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · L2023-04-13 · tag F0837 — widespreadEstablish a governing body that is legally responsible for establishing and implementing policies for managing and operating the facility and appoints a properly licensed administrator responsible for managing the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on job description review, facility documentation, observations, and interviews the facility failed to produce evidence of an effective governing body (GB), failed to manage its financial resources to ensure an effective pest control program was maintained for 144 residents in the facility. Deficiencies were cited resulting in an Immediate Jeopardy (a situation in which the provider's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation has caused, or is likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident). The Interim Administrator and Regional [NAME] President/Administrator (ADM #1) were notified of the Immediate Jeopardy for F812 and F925 on 4/4/2023 at 6:36 PM in the Administrator's office. The Regional [NAME] President/Administrator (ADM #1) was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy for F835 on 4/11/2023 at 10:55 AM in the Administrator's office. The Interim Administrator and Regional [NAME] President/Administrator (ADM #1) were notified of the Immediate Jeopardy for F837 on 4/12/2023 at 11:57 AM in the Administrator's office. The facility was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · L2023-04-13 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — widespreadMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, electronic communication review, observation, and interview the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program potentially affecting 144 residents. Deficiencies were cited resulting in an Immediate Jeopardy (a situation in which the provider's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation has caused, or is likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident). The Interim Administrator and Regional [NAME] President/Administrator (ADM #1) were notified of the Immediate Jeopardy for F812 and F925 on 4/4/2023 at 6:36 PM in the Administrator's office. The Regional [NAME] President/Administrator (ADM #1) was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy for F835 on 4/11/2023 at 10:55 AM in the Administrator's office. The Interim Administrator and Regional [NAME] President/Administrator (ADM #1) were notified of the Immediate Jeopardy for F837 on 4/12/2023 at 11:57 AM in the Administrator's office. The facility was cited Immediate Jeopardy at F812 (L), F835 (L), F837 (L), and F925 (L). The facility was cited F656…
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 · G2023-04-13 · 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 the facility policy review, medical record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement care plans for 2 Residents (Residents #583 and #102) of 36 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failure to implement Resident #583's care plan resulted in the resident having a critical lab value, the resident was transferred to the hospital and diagnosed with a GI (Gastrointestinal Bleed), Anemia, and required a blood transfusion which resulted in Harm for Resident #583. The facility failed to develop and implement an individualized and person-centered care plan related to activities for 1 non-English speaking resident (Resident #102) of 2 non-English speaking residents reviewed. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised 12/2016, showed .A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed 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.
- Actual harm · G2023-04-13 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on the facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to follow a physician's order to obtain a weekly lab for medication monitoring for 1 resident (Resident 583) of 30 residents reviewed for quality of care. Resident #583's lab specimen clotted rendering the specimen unusable, and a new specimen was not obtained. The facility's failure to ensure Resident #583's lab was obtained per the physician order resulted in an elevated International Normalized Ratio (INR a test which measures how long it takes blood to clot) critical lab value which required the resident to be hospitalized , diagnosed with a GI (Gastrointestinal) bleed upon arrival to the hospital, and required a blood transfusion, which resulted in Harm for Resident #583. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Anticoagulation-Clinical Protocol, dated 9/2012, revealed .Assessment and Recognition .The physician will identify individuals who are currently anticoagulated .Assess for evidence of effects…
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 · G2023-04-13 · tag F0710 — isolatedObtain a doctor's order to admit a resident and ensure the resident is under a doctor's care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on the facility policy review, medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 resident's (Resident #583) medical care was supervised by a physician of 36 residents reviewed for physician services. The facility's failure to monitor Resident #583's medical status resulted in an elevated International Normalized Ratio (INR a test which measures how long it takes blood to clot) critical lab value which required the resident to be hospitalized , diagnosed with a GI (Gastrointestinal) bleed upon arrival to the hospital and required a blood transfusion, which resulted in Harm for Resident #583. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Anticoagulation-Clinical Protocol, dated 9/2012, revealed .Assessment and Recognition .The physician will identify individuals who are currently anticoagulated .Assess for evidence of effects related to the subtherapeutic or greater than therapeutic drug level related to that particular drug .In addition, the nurses shall assess 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 · Fcited before2026-05-19 · 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 maintain sanitary kitchen equipment in 1 of 1 kitchen observed. The facility's failure had the potential to affect 166 of 168 residents.The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Food Safety Requirements, dated 3/26/2025, revealed, .All equipment used in handling food shall be cleaned and sanitized, and handled in a manor [manner] to prevent contamination .Staff shall follow facility procedures for .cleaning fixed cooking equipment . During an observation on 5/17/2026 at 10:40 AM, with the Dietary Manager (DM) revealed a line of fixed kitchen cooking equipment which included a convection oven, tilt skillet, and a front oven. Each piece of equipment was observed in unclean and in unsanitary conditions as evidence by dried, dark brown food debris located on multiple surface areas of each piece of equipment. The debris appeared on the front and sides of the units. During an interview on 5/17/2026 at 10:48 AM, the DM confirmed the convection oven, tilt skillet, and front oven had dark,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-19 · 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
Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the facility's main dining room was open for resident use for 2 of 7 days of the week. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights, dated 3/7/2023, revealed .All residents will be treated equally regardless of age, race, ethnicity, religion, culture, language, physical or mental disability, socioeconomic status, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression .The resident has the right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with access to persons and services inside and outside the facility . During the initial tour of the facility on 5/17/2026, the activity calendar was observed to have in-room only dining for the weekends. During an interview on 5/19/2026 3:55 PM, Resident #77 stated .I would like to be able to eat in there with everybody else on the weekends. Some people want to bring their families and want to see everybody . During an interview on 5/19/2026 3:59 PM, Resident #58 .I would like the option to eat in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-19 · tag F0638 — isolatedAssure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
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 Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to complete quarterly assessments, using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-specified RAI process within the regulatory time frames for 1 resident (Resident #20) of 33 residents reviewed for MDS assessments.The findings include: Review of the MDS 3.0 RAI Manual version 20.1, dated 10/2025, revealed, .The Quarterly assessment is an OBRA (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) non-comprehensive assessment for a resident that must be completed at least every 92 days following the previous OBRA assessment .The MDS completion date for quarterly assessments must be no later than 14 days after the ARD [Assessment Reference Date] . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Heart Disease, Diabetes Mellitus Type 2, and Old Myocardial Infarction. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE],…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-19 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis facility and failed to document the status of the resident upon return to the facility for 1 resident (Resident #113) of 4 residents reviewed for Hemodialysis. The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Hemodialysis, undated, revealed .The facility will assure that each resident receives care and services for the provision of hemodialysis consistent with the professional standards of practice. This will include .ongoing assessment of the resident's condition and monitoring before and after dialysis treatments .ongoing assessment and oversight of the resident before during and after dialysis treatments .communication with the dialysis facility regarding dialysis care and services .the nurse will monitor and document the status of the resident's access site(s) upon return from the dialysis treatment to observe for bleeding and other…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-19 · tag F0801 — isolatedEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on job description review, employee file review, and interviews the facility failed to ensure the Dietary Manager completed accredited course work in dietetic training and certification.The findings include: Review of the Food Service Manager (Dietary Manager) job description, undated, revealed .The primary purpose of your position is to assist the Dietitian in planning, organizing, developing and directing the overall operation of the Food Service Department .Qualifications .a high school diploma .Graduate of an accredited course in dietetic training approved by the American Dietetic Association . Review of the employee file for the Dietary Manager (DM), revealed no certificate of completion of course work which would satisfy the job description requirement. Further review revealed The DM had been in his current role since 3/13/2018. During an interview on 5/17/2026 at 11:37 AM, the DM stated .I'm working on it [dietary certification] . when asked if he had completed the accredited course work for dietetic training and certification. During employee file review and interview…
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 before2024-07-24 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect 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 Based on facility policy review, medical record review, facility investigation documentation review, police report review, and interview, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from physical abuse for 3 residents (Resident #2, Resident #4, and Resident #6) of 21 residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation, Exploitation Policy, effective 8/2023, revealed .Purpose: To prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation .and to ensure reporting of alleged violations . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Hemiplegia, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and Major Depressive Disorder. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #2 scored a 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Continued review revealed no behaviors were observed during the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2023-04-13 · tag F0841 — widespreadDesignate a physician to serve as medical director responsible for implementation of resident care policies and coordination of medical care in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review and interview the facility failed to ensure Medical Director duties were coordinated to clearly delineate responsibilities of the facility's Medical Directors. The facility's failure to implement and coordinate resident care created an environment which impaired the nursing staff to effectively provide patient care and services which had the potential to affect all 144 residents in the facility. The findings include: Review of the Medical Director Agreement signed by Medical Director #1 showed . Physician [reference to Medical Director/Physician] shall guide, approve, and help oversee the development, implementation, and monitoring/evaluation of Facility's resident care policies and procedures in the following areas: .admission policies and care practices that address the types of residents that may be admitted and retained based upon the ability of the Facility to provide the services and care to meet their needs .Mechanisms for communicating and resolving issues related to medical care . Physician shall be responsible for coordination of medical…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-04-13 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect 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 Based on facility policy review, facility investigation review, medical record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to protect 2 Residents (#56 and #17) from physical abuse of 30 residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse Prevention/Reporting Policy and Procedure, dated 2018, showed .Residents must not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including, but not limited to employees, other residents .Abuse is defined as willful infliction of injury . Resident #56 was admitted to the facility 10/1/2021, with diagnoses including Vascular Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance, Hypertension, Type II Diabetes Mellitus, Major Depressive Disorder and Chronic Kidney Disease. Review of Resident #56's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed the resident had severe cognitive impairment, a short and long term memory problem, and displayed inattention and disorganized thinking during the assessment. Resident #56 required extensive…
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 · D2023-04-13 · 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 facility policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide interpretation services or an effective communication service for 1 non-English speaking resident (Resident #102) of 2 non-English speaking residents reviewed. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Translation and/or Interpretation, revised 5/2017, showed .This facility's language access program will ensure that individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) shall have meaningful access to information and services provided by the facility .the types of language access services provided by this facility shall be determined by the following factors .The size .of the eligible LEP population served by the facility .The frequency with which the particular LEP population is in contact with the facility .The nature and/or importance of the information or service that needs to be conveyed .The point of contact regarding facility's language access program is the Director of Social…
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 · D2023-04-13 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement an individualized and activities program to meet the needs for 1 non-English speaking resident (Resident #102) of 2 non-English speaking residents reviewed for activities. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Activity Programs, revised 8/2006, showed Activity programs designed to meet the needs of each resident are available on a daily basis .Our activity programs are designed to encourage maximum individual participation and are geared to the individual resident's needs .Activities are scheduled 7 (seven) days a week and residents are given an opportunity to contribute to the planning, preparation, conducting, cleanup, and critique of the programs .Our activity programs consist of individual and small and large group activities that are designed to meet the needs and interests of each resident and include, as a minimum .Activities that stimulate the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2021-06-30 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect 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 Based on facility policy review, medical record review, review of facility documentation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 residents (#55 and #53) remained free from abuse of 14 residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Prevention/Reporting Policy and Procedure dated 8/15/2017 showed .Every resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation .exploitation, corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, and any physical or chemical restraint .Residents must not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including, but not limited to .other residents . Medical record review showed Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Dementia, Adult Failure to Thrive, Anxiety Disorder, and Palliative Care. Medical record review showed Resident #77 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Cognitive Communication Deficit and Dementia Medical record 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.
“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
$12,038 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $12,038 — penalty dated 2024-07-24
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 CHAMPION CARE — 22 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 | 2.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 1 of 5 | 2.1 | -1.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.3 | -1.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
The other 21 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.2★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SMOKY MOUNTAINS OPERATIONS HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/01/2024 |
| SMOKY MOUNTAINS REALTY LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| RUVEL, MENACHEM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/22/2025 |
| WEINBERG, YISROEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/22/2025 |
| HASEMEIER, ERIC | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| STIEFEL, BENJAMIN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2024 |
| LANDA, BENJAMIN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/13/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.7M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TN
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Tennessee Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 445114. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-19, 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.