Nhc Healthcare, Oakwood
244 Oakwood Dr, Lewisburg, TN 37091 · For profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (931) 359-3563 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0569)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
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 | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 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 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 17.1% | 14.0% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.0% | 6.1% | 5.4% | better |
| 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 | 2.9% | 1.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 13.8% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 3.4% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.0% | 17.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.1% | 31.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.8% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.0% | 5.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.9% | 20.0% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.0% | 16.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.7% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.5% | 79.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.4% | 22.6% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.9% | 11.2% | 12.0% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
67.3% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 49 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 64.5% 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 31 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 0.31 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 49% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| 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 | 67.3%CMS range 56.4–75.5 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.8%CMS range 7.9–17.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 64.5% | 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 | 67.7% | 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 | 58.1% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 4.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.5%CMS range 3.6–12.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.20 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 54.7 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.23 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.76 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.68 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.90 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.36 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.87 to 0.49 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · F2026-01-22 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — widespreadHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on the facility's Work In/Out Report and interviews the facility failed to ensure there was Registered Nurse (RN) coverage for 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week, for 2 of 30 days reviewed. The facility's census was 51. The findings include: Review of the facility's Work In/Out Report for time punches dated 1/10/2026, revealed RN A worked from 12:00 AM until 12:45 AM and RN A and RN B worked from 7:00 PM until 12:00 AM, which provided a period of 5 hours of RN coverage, resulting in no RN coverage for 8 consecutive hours. The facility was unable to provide documentation of RN coverage between 12:46 AM and 6:59 PM, resulting in no consecutive 8 hour interval of RN coverage for 1/10/2026. Review of the facility's Work In/Out Report for time punches dated 1/11/2026, revealed RN A worked from 12:00 AM until 3:00 AM and 3:30 AM until 7:30 AM. RN B worked from 12:45 AM until 7:15 AM, and from 7:00 PM until 12:00 AM, which provided a period of 7.5 hours of RN coverage, resulting in no RN coverage for 8 consecutive hours. The facility was unable to provide documentation of RN…
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 before2026-01-22 · 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 provide care and services to promote dignity for 1 of 1 (Resident #39) sampled residents reviewed for indwelling urinary catheter (plastic tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine).The findings include: 1. Review of the facility policy titled, Patient Rights, dated 9/2024, revealed .Privacy.we provide you with privacy so that you may maintain a dignified existence, self-determination. 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Aphasia, Obstructive and Reflux Uropathy (a condition that prevents normal urine flow), and Hypertensive Heart and Chronic Kidney Disease. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #39 scored a 5 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, which indicated Resident #39 was severely cognitively impaired, and was coded for the use of an…
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 · D2026-01-22 · tag F0569 — isolatedNotify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
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 policy review, admission and financial agreement review, resident trust fund account review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to refund the resident's funds within 30 days of death or discharge for 3 of 3 (Resident #64, #65, and #66) sampled residents reviewed for personal funds. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility policy titled, Patient Trust, dated 10/2010, revealed .The funds should be refunded within 30 days of death or discharge, unless the state guidelines specify a shorter time frame. Review of the facility's admission and Financial Agreement revealed .Monies held for a Patient in trust will be paid to Patient's estate within 30 days of death. 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #64 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Dementia, Adult Failure to Thrive, Depression, and Anxiety. Review of Resident #64's face sheet listed Family Member A as the Resident Representative. Review of the Nurse's Note dated [DATE], 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 · D2025-02-14 · 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, medical record review, observation and interview the facility failed to follow the facility accident policy related to an unobserved fall for 1 of 3 (Resident #31) reviewed for accidents. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility policy titled, INCIDENT AND ACCIDENT PROCESS, with revision date of 8/13/2013 revealed, .Investigation into the incident/accident .Obtain information on what happened-what was actually seen or heard. If not witness, get patient's statement about what happened .Never move the patient until the assessment is completed unless immediate treatment is needed .Assess the patient related to the incident/accident . 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following Cerebral Infarction, Monocular Vision Loss and Personal history of Traumatic Brain Injury. Review of the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed Resident #31 had a Brief 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 · D2025-02-14 · tag F0699 — isolatedProvide care or services that was trauma informed and/or culturally competent.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that 1 of 24 sampled residents (Resident #31) received trauma-informed care in accordance with professional standards of practice and accounting for a resident's experiences and preferences to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the resident. The findings include: 1. Review of the undated facility policy titled, Care Plan Completion, revealed, .After completing the MDS [Minimum Data Set] and CAA [Care Area Assessment] portions of the comprehensive assessment, the next step is to evaluate the information gained through both assessment processes to identify problems .patient's .problems, and needs . Review of the undated facility policy titled, Trauma Informed Care, revealed, .As an organization we are committed to learning about trauma and its effects and to engage with an implement trauma-informed approaches to the care we provide and the culture we create .Trauma-informed care is…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-02-14 · 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 policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure practices to prevent the potential spread of infection was maintained for 1 of 1 sampled resident (Resident #16) reviewed for enhanced barrier precautions. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions, dated 4/2024, revealed .Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EPB) refers to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms [MDRO] that employs targeted gown and glove use during high contact activities. EPB are used in conjunction with standard precautions and expand the use of PPE [personal protective equipment] to donning of gown and gloves during high-contact patient care activities that provide opportunities for transfer of MDRO to staff hands and clothing .EPB are indicated for patients with .wounds .even if the patient is not known to be infected or colonized with a MDRO .Providers and partners must wear gloves…
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 · F2022-03-09 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — widespreadEnsure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
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, documentation review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure there was no more than 14 hours between a substantial evening meal and breakfast the following day. The findings include: Review of facility's policy titled, Meal Service & Patient Meal Delivery, dated 11/2020, revealed, .The center will provide meals with no greater than a 14-hour lapse between the evening meal and breakfast (or 16 hours with approval of a resident group and provision of a substantial snack) . Review of the undated facility documentation titled, Meal Service Schedule, revealed 15 hours between the evening meal at 4:00 PM and the breakfast meal at 7:00 AM. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Muscle Weakness and End Stage Renal Disease. Review of Resident #2's Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 indicating…
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 · F2022-03-09 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure food was served in a sanitary manner for 46 of 47 residents served a meal tray from the kitchen. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Glove Use, revised 11/2017, revealed, .Change gloves before moving from one task to another .partners shall have no bare hand contact with food and shall use appropriate items such as deli tissue, spatulas, tongs, single-use gloves, or dispensing equipment when handling food .Gloves should never replace the use of utensils, tongs, etc . Observation in the kitchen on 3/7/2022 at 11:10 AM, revealed the [NAME] was preparing meals on the tray line, reached into the warmer and touched a roll with her gloved hand, then touched French fries with her gloved hand and placed them on a resident meal plate. During an interview on 3/7/2022 at 11:10 AM, the [NAME] confirmed she should not have touched the roll or the French fries with her gloved hand. During an interview on 3/7/2022 at 11:15 AM, the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) confirmed 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 · E2022-03-09 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to complete a Care Conference after each completed resident assessment for 9 of 27 sampled residents (Residents #2, #3, #6, #16, #21, #23, #39, #41, and #42) reviewed. The facility also failed to revise a Care Plan for 1 of 27 sampled residents (Resident #23) reviewed. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Updating and Revising Care Plans, dated [DATE], revealed, .Routine Reviews and Updates: Care plans are updated as needed but are reviewed completely by the interdisciplinary team on a quarterly basis within 7 days of the completion of the clinical MDS [Minimum Data Set] assessment . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with readmission on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis, Nontraumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage, End Stage Renal Disease, Dependence on Renal Dialysis, Major Depressive Disorder, Epilepsy, Hypertensive…
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 before2022-03-09 · 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 2 of 17 residents (Resident #9 and Resident #35) were treated in a dignified manner during the lunch meal on 3/7/2022. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rights, dated 2/2020, revealed, .we support the patient/resident's right to live in an environment which is individualized for them. We strive to cultivate and sustain an excellent quality of life for each individual with person-centered care and services, by honoring and supporting each patient/resident's preferences, choices, values and beliefs . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with readmission on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Senile Degeneration of Brain, Dementia, and Dysphagia. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed Resident #9 required total assistance with one person assist with eating. Review of the 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 · D2022-03-09 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a Baseline Care Plan within 48 hours of admission for 3 of 7 sampled residents (Residents #1, #97, and #146) reviewed. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Patient Care Plans, updated 10/2021, revealed, .The center will ensure an interdisciplinary and comprehensive approach to the development of the patient's care plan of care. Patient's goals for care and preferences will be determined and used to develop their plan of care .Time Frames for Care Plans: Baseline plan of care within 48 hours of admission addressing the immediate needs of the patient. Must be presented to patient and/or patient representative in terms they can understand .All disciplines involved in the care of the patient must be represented in the baseline care plan and be included in the development . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses…
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 before2022-03-09 · 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, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to sanitize medical equipment after usage for 3 of 27 sampled residents (Resident #13, #26, and #97) observed. The findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Cleaning of Shared Medical Equipment, revealed, .Equipment: All durable medical equipment and reusable items including but not limited to: stethoscopes, blood pressure cuffs, thermometers, oximeters, and glucometers .Durable medical equipment (DME) must be cleaned and disinfected before reuse by another patient . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Spastic Quadraplegic Cerebral Palsy. Review of the current Physician Orders for Resident #13 dated 3/1/2022, revealed, .Droplet Precautions. DX COVID 19 . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Unspecified Atrial Fibrillation.…
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 | 4 of 5 | 4.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| DODSON, VICKI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2019 |
| SHELLY, TIMOTHY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/12/2024 |
| USSERY, ROBERT | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2017 |
| NHC-OP LP | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2000 |
| BIDWELL, CHARLES | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 06/15/2021 |
| BROWN, TRACY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/01/1993 |
| JEFFERSON, KELLEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2023 |
| KELLER, ALLISON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/29/2024 |
| KIDD, BRIAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2017 |
| MORGAN STANLEY | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/08/2024 |
| MORGAN STANLEY INSTITUTIONAL ADVISORS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/08/2024 |
| VANGUARD GROUP INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 11/30/2006 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 12 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.
4 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 $468K 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 445002. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-22, 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.