Life Care Center Of Blount County
1965 Stewart Lane, Louisville, TN 37777 · For profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (865) 984-3146 Medicare only — no Medicaid
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jul 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
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $8,018 in federal fines (most recent 2024-07-10)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 3 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 | 4 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 | 13.2% | 14.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.6% | 6.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 13.8% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.5% | 3.4% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 29.3% | 17.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 26.3% | 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 | 1.2% | 5.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.7% | 20.0% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.1% | 16.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.0% | 1.7% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.6% | 79.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.9% | 22.6% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.9% | 11.2% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.10 | 1.67 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.22 | 1.56 | 1.80 | 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.
56.3% 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 669 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 79.2% 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 211 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 0.92 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 96% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 21% 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 | 56.3%CMS range 52.6–59.7 | 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 | 11.0%CMS range 9.1–12.7 | 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 | 79.2% | 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 | 73.0% | 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 | 57.4% | 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 | 99.1% | 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 | 99.1% | 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 | 98.9% | 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 | 0.9% | 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 | 1.8% | 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 | 5.3%CMS range 3.6–7.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.97 | 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 120 beds and averages 99.1 residents a day — about 83% occupied, or roughly 21 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 3.79 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.88 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.94 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 3.12 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.06 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.96 to 0.70 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 51% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-07-10 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, facility investigation documentation review, and interview, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from psychosocial abuse for 1 of 13 (Resident #14) sampled residents reviewed for abuse when Resident #15 entered Resident #14's room, pulled the covers off of her, tried to remove her brief, and exposed himself to Resident #14 on 8/21/2023. The facility's failure to protect the resident's right to be free from abuse resulted in actual HARM for Resident #14. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Rights, dated 6/8/2020, revealed .The resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation . Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse-Identification of Types, dated 10/4/2022, revealed .Abuse-is defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish .Instances…
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 · D2026-07-01 · 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 interviews the facility failed to provide dignity for 1 resident (Resident #90) of 24 residents reviewed for dignity.The findings include:Review of the facility policy titled Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), dated 9/10/2024, revealed .For residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living receives the necessary services to maintain .grooming .Review of the medical record revealed Resident #90 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Muscle Weakness, Diabetes, and Dementia.Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #90 scored a 9 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment and required partial/moderate assistance with personal hygiene.Review of a comprehensive care plan for Resident #90 dated 6/5/2026, revealed .ADL assistance .assist with .ADL's as needed .During 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 · D2026-07-01 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolatedHonor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
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, observations and interviews the facility failed to honor the bathing preferences of 2 residents (Resident #73 and #106) of 24 residents reviewed. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), dated 9/10/2024, revealed .the resident will receive assistance as needed to complete activities of daily living (ADL's) .Any change .will be reported to the nurse . Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Rights, dated 9/26/2025, revealed .resident has the right to receive the services .included in care plan .make choices about aspects of his or her life in the facility that are significant to the resident . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Fracture of Left Femur, Diabetes, and Muscle Weakness. Review of a comprehensive care plan dated 6/15/2026, revealed Resident #73 had an .ADL [Activities of Daily Living] assistance .to maintain…
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 · D2026-07-01 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
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 medications were securely stored in 1 medication cart (Medication Cart 1) of 3 medication carts reviewed. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage, dated 11/28/22, revealed .the facility must store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments .permit only authorized personnel to have access . During an observation and interview on 6/30/2026 at 7:52 PM, revealed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) B was standing at a medication cart preparing medications. LPN B left the medication cart and entered residents room, leaving the medication cart unlocked and unattended. LPN B returned to the medication cart and confirmed the mediation cart was left unlocked and unattended. LPN B confirmed she should have locked the medication cart when left unattended. During an interview on 6/30/2026 at 8:01 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) A stated there were no wandering residents in the facility. During the night shift observation on 6/30/2026 from 7:42 PM to 8:50 PM, no wandering…
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 · F2024-12-06 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — widespreadDevelop 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 Review of the medical record revealed Resident #238 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Coronary Implant and Graft, Presence of Right Artificial Knee Joint, Dementia, and Chronic Kidney Disease. Review of an admission MDS assessment for Resident #238 dated 9/20/2024, revealed Resident #238 scored a 9 on the BIMS assessment which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the facility's document titled Wound Observation Tool, dated 11/14/2024, revealed Resident #238 had an open wound on the left shin. Review of the facility's document titled Wound Observation Tool, dated 11/14/2024, revealed Resident #238 had an open wound on the left heel. Review of the comprehensive care plan dated 12/2/2024, revealed Resident #238 had a pressure ulcer on the left shin and on the left heel. Further review revealed a care plan was not developed or implemented for EBP. During an observation on 12/2/2024 at 10:49 AM, revealed there was no EBP signage posted or PPE available in…
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 before2024-12-06 · 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, refrigerator and freezer temperature log reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to obtain and record twice daily temperatures for 3 of 3 refrigerators, and 2 of 2 freezers in the kitchen per facility policy. The failure had the potential to affect 88 of the 93 residents in the facility. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Food Safety, revised 4/26/2023, revealed .Food is stored and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary manner .to minimize contamination and bacterial growth .Cold Food Storage .3. Temperatures are recorded at least twice daily on the Refrigerator/Freezer Temperature Log . Review of the facility's documentation titled, Refrigerator/Freezer Temperature Logs, kitchen staff documentation for the month of 11/2024, for 3 refrigerators, and 2 freezers located in the kitchen revealed the following: 1. For the Reach-in Fridge temperature logs dated: 11/17/2024, 11/23/2024, 11/25/2024, the temperatures for the evening or PM shifts were not obtained and documented on the log. On 11/30/2024 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 · F2024-12-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespreadProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
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 implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for 14 residents (Residents #12, #18, #36, #135, #136, #385, #389, #15, #185, #186, #50, #335, #238, and #239) of 14 residents reviewed for EBP. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP), reviewed 6/3/2024, revealed .The facility should use Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) as an additional .strategy for residents that meet the following criteria .EBP are indicated for residents with any of the following .wounds and/or indwelling medical devices even if the resident is not known to be infected .the facility should develop a process to communicate which residents require the use of EBP .The facility may choose to post signage on the door or wall outside of the resident room indicating the resident is on Enhanced Barrier Precautions .Examples of high-contact resident care activities requiring gown and glove…
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 · D2024-12-06 · tag F0636 — isolatedAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual review, medical record review, observations, and interviews the facility failed to enter the code for isolation treatment for 1 resident (Resident #236) of 19 residents reviewed for MDS accuracy. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Clostridium (Clostridioides) Difficile (CDI), reviewed 6/4/2024, revealed .The facility will care for residents with suspected and actual Clostridium Difficile in accordance with local, state, and federal guidelines .a system for .identifying .communicable diseases .transmission-based precautions to be followed to prevent spread of infections .isolation should be used . Review of the MDS 3.0 RAI Manual revised 10/4/2024, revealed .Isolation or quarantine .Code only when the resident requires transmission-based precautions .with highly transmissible .pathogens that have been acquired by physical contact . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #236 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-06 · 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, observations and interviews the facility failed to secure medications for 1 resident (Resident #235) of 19 residents reviewed for medication storage. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Self-Administration of Medication, revised 10/31/2021, revealed Resident who requests to self-administer medications is assessed by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) to determine if the resident is safe to self-administer medications .from a central location .medication cart or medication room .or the resident is able to safely store the medication in a secure are [area] in their room .The interdisciplinary assessment will be completed in the electronic medication record . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #235 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Muscle Weakness, Cancer, Hearing Loss, and Cognitive Impairment. Review of the 5-day admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #235 dated 11/22/2024,…
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 · F2024-07-10 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
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 post accurate nursing staff information to reflect daily staffing levels on 2 of 4 days reviewed for staffing and failed to maintain the posted daily nurse staffing data for a minimum of 18 months. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Staffing, dated 6/12/2024, revealed .The facility maintains adequate staff on each shift to meet residents' needs, posts daily staffing data .The facility must post the following information .Facility name .The current date .The total number and the actual hours worked by the following categories of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift .Registered nurses .Licensed practical nurses or licensed vocational nurses .Certified nurse aides .Resident census .Posting requirements .The facility must post the nurse staffing data .on a daily basis at the beginning of each shift .The facility maintains the posted daily nurse staffing data for a minimum of 18 months . During an observation on 7/10/2024 at 5:15…
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 · D2024-07-10 · 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 facility policy review, medical record review, facility investigation documentation review, and interview, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the State Agency when a resident (Resident #15) exposed himself to another resident (Resident #14 of 13 residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Protection of Residents: Reducing the Threat of Abuse & [and] Neglect, revised 8/10/2021, revealed .This facility does not condone resident abuse and/or neglect by anyone. This includes, but is not limited to staff members, other residents .family members .or other individuals .The facility must ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse . are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse .to other officials (including the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance…
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 · D2024-07-10 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, medical record review, and interview the facility failed to accurately complete a discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 1 resident (Resident #24) of 3 residents reviewed for falls. The findings include: Review of the RAI Manual 3.0 dated 10/2023, revealed .The MDS is completed on all residents in Medicare or Medicaid certified facilities .Sections A-Q contain the clinical data items used to assess residents in the nursing facility .Assure that the information found in the resident's most current assessment .report changes in the resident's status that may affect the accuracy of this information .J1900: Number of Falls Since Admission/Entry or Reentry or Prior Assessment .Review nursing home incident reports and medical record .for falls and level of injury . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Fracture of the Right Leg, Muscle Weakness, and Lack of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-10 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 provide scheduled showers for 3 dependent residents (Resident #12, #8, and #22) of 10 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), revised 2/2024, revealed .The resident will receive assistance as needed to complete activities of daily living (ADLs) .Quality of care is fundamental .the facility must ensure that residents receive treatment .care .in accordance with professional standards of practice .hygiene .bathing .grooming .a resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living receives .services to maintain good .personal hygiene . Medical record review revealed Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Epilepsy, Vascular Dementia, and Urinary Incontinence. Review of a comprehensive care plan for Resident #12 dated 1/26/2022, revealed the resident was care planned…
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 before2021-09-22 · 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 review of the facility policy, observation, and interview the facility failed to store food items in a clean, safe, and sanitary manner in 1 walk in cooler, 1 dry storage area, and 1 kitchen with the potential to affect 92 residents in the facility. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, titled Food Safety, undated showed .Pre-packaged food is placed in leak-proof .sanitary .container with a tight-fitting lid .The container is labeled with the name of the contents . Review of the facility policy titled Use by Date Guide, revised 3/18/2018 showed All opened containers of food in the dry storage area should be placed in an enclosed container, labeled, and dated with the open date and use by date. Any unopened cans/packages should be marked with the date received . Observation of the kitchen with the Nutritional Coordinator on 9/20/2021 at 9:30 AM, showed the following: -1 large white bin with a lid which contained a white powdered substance with ¼ of the bin remaining. The bin was unlabeled and had an expiration date of 7/26/2021. -1 large white bin which…
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 · D2021-09-22 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the facility policy, medical record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to notify the Physician timely after a fall for 1 resident (#189) of 4 residents reviewed for falls. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, titled Fall Management, revised 8/2/2021 showed .The licensed nurse should create an 'event note' and include the following details .Notification of physician and any orders received .Fall refers to unintentionally coming to rest on the ground, floor, or other lower level .A fall without injury is still a fall .when a resident is found on the floor, a fall is considered to have occurred . Medical record review showed Resident #189 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Hypertension, Anxiety Disorder, Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Periprosthetic Fracture around the Internal Left Knee (broken bone that occurs around an implant). Review of Resident #189's care plan dated 9/17/2021 showed the resident is at risk for falls. Review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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
$8,018 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,018 — penalty dated 2024-07-10
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA — 194 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 | 3.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
The other 193 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 193; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| PRESTON, FORREST | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/1997 |
| KOVACH, LAURINDA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/03/2025 |
| MIRANDA, JUAN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/03/2025 |
| SOLOMON, JENNIFER | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/01/2019 |
| FLETCHER, TODD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 05/01/2021 |
| CROSS, CINDY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/1997 |
| HENRY, TERRY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 08/26/2015 |
| LAY, LISA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 02/09/2018 |
| SWANKER, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 04/01/2011 |
| THURMOND, JOAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 07/05/2001 |
| ZIEGLER, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 06/18/2003 |
| LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/03/2025 |
| PRESTON, AUBREY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/27/2024 |
| SALAZAR-CATRON, TERESA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/03/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 25 rows in the source record cover these 14 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.
1 organizational owner 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 $2.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
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
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Tennessee Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 445520. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-07-01, 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.