Nhc Healthcare, Knoxville
809 East Emerald Ave, Knoxville, TN 37917 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 127 certified beds · (865) 524-7366 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 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
- nursing-staff turnover (58%) 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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 3 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 | 21.6% | 14.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.3% | 6.1% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.8% | 1.8% | 2.0% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.0% | 13.8% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.1% | 3.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 23.2% | 17.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 32.6% | 31.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 9.4% | 5.0% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 15.2% | 20.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.7% | 16.8% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 1.7% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.7% | 79.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.2% | 22.6% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.5% | 11.2% | 12.0% | 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.
61.4% 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 82 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 71.4% 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 35 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 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 40% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% 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 | 61.4%CMS range 49.8–71.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.0%CMS range 8.5–16.0 | 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 | 71.4% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 71.4% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 74.3% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 96.9% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.2% | 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 | 10.2%CMS range 6.0–17.5 | 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 127 beds and averages 96.2 residents a day — about 76% occupied, or roughly 31 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 3.84 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.00 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.90 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 3.29 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.06 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.14 to 0.66 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 58% 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2023-03-15 · 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, interview, and observations, the facility failed to ensure 4 residents (Resident #30, Resident #75, Resident #31, and Resident #57) were free from abuse of 65 potential residents. Resident #30 grabbed Resident #75 and Resident #57 and pushed and choked Resident #31. Resident #57 struck Resident #30 in response to Resident #30's aggressiveness. Resident #75 and Resident #57 expressed being fearful of Resident #30, resulting in psychosocial harm for Residents #75 and #57. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Patient Protection and Response Policy for Allegations/Incidents of Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation of Property and Exploitation, dated 2/1/2023, showed .Abuse, neglect .will not be tolerated by anyone, including .patients .The patient has the right to be free from abuse, neglect .The center administrator is responsible for assuring that patient safety, including freedom from risk of abuse or neglect holds the highest priority…
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 before2026-04-29 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure expired food items were not available for resident use in 1 of 2 nourishment room refrigerators observed. The findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Safety & [and] Sanitation Best Practice Guidelines, dated 6/2025, revealed .REFRIGERATOR .STORAGE .Refrigerated .foods will be stored properly for optimal product safety .Expiration dates .will be used .to ensure food safety .During an observation and interview on 4/27/2026 at 10:56 AM, revealed the 2nd floor nourishment room refrigerator contained five unopened 10 fluid ounce bottles of orange juice with an expiration date of 4/8/2026. The Certified Dietary Manager confirmed the items were expired and available for resident use.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-05 · 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 review of facility policy, medical record review, review of facility investigations, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure 4 residents (Residents #1, #7, #9, and #3) were free from physical abuse during 4 separate resident versus resident altercations of 23 sampled residents. The findings include: Review of the Administrative Procedures Manual, Patient Protection and Response Policy for Allegations/Incidents of Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation of Property and Exploitation, dated [DATE], revealed .Abuse: the willful infliction of injury .Willful, as used in this definition of abuse, means the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm .Physical Abuse: includes hitting, slapping, pinching and kicking . 1. Review of the medical records and facility investigation documentation revealed a resident-versus-resident altercation occurred between Resident #1 and Resident #2 on [DATE]. Review of the medical record revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-03-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, observations, and interview, the facility failed to ensure kitchen staff wore protective beard coverings while preparing food observed for 2 of 2 staff members. The facility failed to maintain a sanitary kitchen environment as evidenced by undated food and food open to air observed in 1 of 1 dry storage rooms and failed to maintain sanitary kitchen equipment which had the potential to affect 100 of 102 residents. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Hygiene & Safety Practices, revised 11/2017, revealed .partners shall wear hair restraints such as hats, hair coverings, or nets, beard restraints .that are designed and worn to effectively keep their hair from contacting exposed food; clean equipment, utensils, and linens; and unwrapped single-service and single-use articles . Review of the facility policy titled, Safety & Sanitization Best Practice Guidelines, dated 11/2017, showed .packages should be closed securely . Review of the facility policy titled, Safety & Sanitization Best Practice Guidelines, dated 11/2017, showed .Equipment…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-03-15 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to provide a clean and homelike environment for 13 of 38 resident rooms. The facility failed to repair wallpaper in 8 of 38 resident rooms and in 5 out of 5 hallways. The facility failed to clean air vents on 5 of 5 hallways. The facility failed to replace ceiling tiles in 5 of 38 resident rooms. The facility failed to repair window seals which resulted in uncomfortable temperature levels in 5 of 38 resident rooms. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, NHC Knoxville Housekeeping Policy, dated 3/15/2023, showed .NHC expects to maintain our building in a manor [manner] that is clean, presentable for our patients and staff. Routine cleaning of patient rooms Daily. High-Touch surfaces, floors and sinks are cleaned daily. Low touch surfaces are scheduled weekly or when visibly soiled. Weekly High surfaces .such as tops of cupboards, vents, walls, baseboards and corners. Monthly window blinds, bed curtains and any…
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 · D2023-03-15 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 10 residents (Resident #80) was treated in a dignified manner during incontinence care. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Resident Rights dated 2/2020, showed .We strive to cultivate and sustain an excellent quality of life for each individual with person-centered care and services . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #80 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Cerebral Vascular Accident with Right-sided Hemiplegia, Diabetes and Atherosclerotic Heart Disease. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed Resident #80 had no speech, absence of spoken words, was always incontinent of bladder and bowel, and required extensive assistance of two persons for toileting (includes change of incontinent pads). Observation while passing by Resident #80's room on 3/14/2023 at 3:46 PM, revealed the door into 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 · D2023-03-15 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, medical record review, and interviews, the facility staff failed to report allegations of abuse to the Administrator for 2 residents (Resident #57 and Resident #30) of 5 residents reviewed for abuse. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy titled, Patient Protection and Response Policy for Allegations/Incidents of Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation of Property and Exploitation, dated 2/1/2023, showed .REPORTING POLICY .Any partner having either direct or indirect knowledge of any event that might constitute abuse .must report the event immediately, but not later than 2 hours .All allegations of possible abuse .will be immediately assessed .It is the policy of this facility that 'abuse' allegations .are reported per Federal and State Law . Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Blindness Right Eye, Dementia with Anxiety, Insomnia, and Weakness. Review of Resident #30's quarterly Minimum Data Set (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 · D2023-03-15 · tag F0744 — failed to care for residents with dementia — isolatedProvide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with dementia.
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, interview, and observations, the facility failed to ensure care and interventions for 1 resident (Resident #30) with Dementia of 13 residents with Dementia reviewed. Resident #30 exhibited behaviors of grabbing other residents, wandering, and agitation with no effective person-centered interventions in place. The findings include: Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Blindness Right Eye, Dementia with Anxiety, Insomnia, and Weakness. Review of Resident #30's comprehensive care plan showed 06/27/2022 .Diagnosis of dementia with anxiety disorder, restlessness and agitation. Patient has difficulty sleeping at night- insomnia. Combative behavior towards staff with rejection of care. Patient known to inappropriately grasp at objects and wander related to poor eyesight. Anxiety and agitation worse in PM [evening] .Goal .Mood/Behaviors will be well managed with current regimen without undue side effects . Review of the care planned interventions…
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 · D2023-03-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, facility staff failed to follow handwashing procedures for 1 resident (#299) of 1 resident in contact isolation precautions. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Infection Control Clinical Supplement dated 12/2019, showed .This is intended as a supplement to help provide more detailed disease specific direction for initiation and duration of precautions .Contact Precautions .For patients with known or suspected .infections or colonization with resistant organisms transmitted by direct or indirect contact with residents or the environment .Hand hygiene is the single most important practice to reduce the transmission of infectious agents in healthcare settings .When dealing with C. difficile infection, hand washing with either plain or antiseptic-containing soap and water is recommended over alcohol based products because spores are not killed by alcohol products; the mechanical action of washing with soap and water washed off 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 · D2019-12-18 · 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 medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to follow the care plan for falls for 1 resident (#86) of 23 sampled residents. The findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #86 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including History of Falling, Fracture of Left Femur, Osteoarthritis, Lack of Coordination, and Hypertension. Medical record review of the Baseline Care Plan, dated 11/19/19, revealed .fall risk .bed in lowest position . Medical record review of Resident #86's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Further review revealed the resident required extensive assistance of 2 persons for transfers, bed mobility, and toileting. Medical record review of the Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 12/3/19 revealed .Keep bed in lowest position . Medical record review of the Certified Nursing Assistant Care Plan, dated 12/3/19, revealed to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-12-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, facility documentation review, observation and interview the facility failed to add a new intervention after a fall for 1 resident (#69) and failed to implement a care plan intervention to prevent accidents for 1 resident (#86) of 5 residents reviewed for accidents. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Falls Policy, revised 7/14/17 revealed .Based on the preceding assessment, the staff and/or physician will identify pertinent interventions to try to prevent subsequent falls and to address risks of serious consequences of falls .If underlying causes cannot be readily identified or corrected, staff will try various relevant interventions, based on assessment of the nature or category of falls, until falling reduces or stops or until a reason is identified for its continuation . Medical record review revealed Resident #69 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia with Behavior Disturbance, Diabetes, 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORPORATION — 69 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 | 3 of 5 | 4.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 68 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 68; 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
CMS ownership filings flag an owner of this facility as an investment firm. That’s a fact worth knowing about who ultimately profits from the home. Read the inspection and staffing record above on its own merits.
- MORGAN STANLEY — investment firm · 5.40% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
- VANGUARD GROUP INC — investment firm · 9.09% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
Source: CMS SNF ownership filings (PECOS). These flags are self-reported and undercount — federal auditors (GAO) and researchers find CMS captures only a fraction of true private-equity and REIT ties, so the absence of a flag on other homes is not proof they lack investor owners. How investor ownership affects care →
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| MORGAN STANLEY INSTITUTIONAL ADVISORS LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 11/08/2024 |
| NASON JR., HOWARD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/18/2016 |
| NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORPORATION | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2000 |
| NHC-OP LP | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2000 |
| BARTON, REBECCA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/18/2018 |
| DODSON, VICKI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2019 |
| KIDD, BRIAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2017 |
| SHUFORD, THOMAS | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/13/2025 |
| SMITH, BERT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/13/2025 |
| USSERY, ROBERT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2009 |
| BLACKROCK INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/20/2019 |
| DIMENSIONAL FUND ADVISORS LP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/07/2023 |
| MORGAN STANLEY | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/08/2024 |
| NATIONAL HEALTH CORPORATION | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2000 |
| VANGUARD GROUP INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/27/2017 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 23 rows in the source record cover these 15 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
8 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 $931K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TN
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Tennessee Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 445098. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-29, 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.