Manchester Center For Rehabilitation And Healing L
395 Interstate Drive, Manchester, TN 37355 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 120 certified beds · (931) 723-8744 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- 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
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- about 18% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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) | 2 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 | 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 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 | 10.1% | 14.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.9% | 6.1% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.1% | 1.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 16.5% | 13.8% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.0% | 3.4% | 3.3% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.8% | 17.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.5% | 31.7% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.8% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.6% | 5.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 17.4% | 20.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.6% | 16.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.2% | 1.7% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.9% | 79.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.8% | 22.6% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.3% | 11.2% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.28 | 1.67 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.01 | 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.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
55.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 168 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 66.2% 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 136 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 0.36 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 61% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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 | 55.5%CMS range 48.4–61.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.9%CMS range 7.7–13.7 | 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 | 66.2% | 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 | 58.8% | 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 | 60.3% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 92.2% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 0.6% | 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 | 0.6% | 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 | 7.4%CMS range 5.1–11.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.13 | 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 106.2 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 14 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 4.27 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.47 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.41 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 3.30 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.67 on weekdays — 29% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.55 to 0.28 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 53% 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 · D2026-06-03 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 perform an assessment for the use of a seatbelt for 2 residents (Resident #34 and #67) of 3 residents reviewed for physical restraints.The findings include: Review of the facility's policy dated 4/2017 titled Use of Restraints, revealed .individuals shall be reviewed regularly (at least quarterly) . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Morbid Obesity, and Type II Diabetes. Review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #34 scored a 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the comprehensive Care Plan initiated 4/26/2026 and revised 4/30/2026, revealed .Resident is at risk for falls r/t [related to] impaired mobility .use of proper assistive device . and .Resident…
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 · D2026-06-03 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to implement the care plan for the use of a lap belt for 2 residents (Resident #34 and #67) and for falls for 1 resident (Resident #107) of 15 residents reviewed for care plans. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy dated 4/2017 titled Use of Restraints, revealed .care plans for residents in restraints . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Morbid Obesity, and Type II Diabetes. Review of an admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #34 scored a 15 on the BIMS assessment which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the comprehensive Care Plan initiated 4/26/2026, revealed .Resident is at risk for falls r/t [related to] impaired mobility .use of proper assistive device . and .Resident requires PT/OT [physical therapy/occupational therapy] due to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-03 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop 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 medical record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to revise the care plan for 1 resident (Resident #107) of 15 residents reviewed for care plans.The findings include:Review of the medical record revealed Resident #107 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Vascular Dementia, Age-Related Physical Disability, and Repeated Falls (added on 3/13/2026).Review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #107 scored a 1 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Further review revealed the resident required partial/moderate assistance with transfers, and substantial/maximal assistance with toileting.Review of the comprehensive care plan revised 6/2/2026, revealed Resident #107's care plan did not reflect bed in lowest position, floor mat to right side of bed, or nightlight. During an observation on 6/1/2026 at 11:54 AM, in Resident #107's room…
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 before2026-06-03 · 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, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control practices during medication administration for 1 resident (Resident #18) of 5 residents reviewed for medication administration.The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Administering Medications, dated 4/2019, revealed .Staff follows established facility infection control procedures .for the administration of medications . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Heart Failure, Diabetes Mellitus, and Chronic Pain Syndrome. Review of the current physician's recapitulation orders for Resident #18 revealed, .Eliquis [medication to thin blood] 5 mg [milligram] .twice a day .Benzonate [medication for cough] 200 mg .every 8 hours .Duloxetine [medication for depression] 40mg .one time a day .Farxiga [medication for diabetes] 10 mg .one time a day…
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 · D2025-09-24 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on job description review, facility policy review, facility investigation documentation review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 resident (Resident #1) was returned to her room after transportation to a medical appointment for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accident hazards. The facility failure occurred on 5/8/2024 when Resident #1 was taken to a medical appointment by the Transportation Coordinator and returned to the facility at approximately 4:30 PM. The facility was under a code black at the time for serious weather conditions. The Transportation Coordinator failed to unload Resident #1 from the facility van and Resident #1 was locked inside the facility van for an unknown amount of time, estimated to be 3 to 4 hours. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A became concerned about Resident #1 and the Transportation Coordinator due to the serious weather conditions around 7:00 PM shift change on 5/8/2024 and called the Nurse Practitioner (NP) to inquire about their location. The NP was present…
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 · F2022-12-07 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY FACILITY Kitchen 12/06/22 11:10 AM Steam table set up in dining room, vertical barrier hung between food station and the rest of dining room, as ceiling was being worked on. 12/06/22 09:58 AM Observation of plating station showed dining area back to normal, with no repairs being done and barrier gone. 12/07/22 8:30 AM Observation of kitchen workers showed appropriate hand sanitation and hair nets in place. During an interview on 12/5/22 at 8:42 AM, [NAME] O'Keefe, Dietary Manager the facility has a full-time qualified with ServSafe Certification that expires 5/18/23, with 14 years experience in healthcare foodservice. Menu was reviewed and the mechanical consistency of the meal is followed per orders from Speech therapy, RD and physician. Alternatives are offered for any meal. Copy of menu reviewed with DM. A tour of the kitchen followed. Brief tour of kitchen included temperature checks on all refrigerators and freezers, and all food products were properly stored at proper temperatures. Dry stored food products…
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 before2022-12-07 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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, the facility's documentation, and interviews, the facility failed to provide evidence that the allegations of abuse were thoroughly investigated for 2 residents (Residents #40 and #96) of 4 residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Policy, dated 4/26/2022, showed .It is the policy of the facility that acts of physical .abuse .against residents are absolutely prohibited .DEFINITIONS .Physical Abuse is the inappropriate physical contact with a resident .This includes .slapping .Upon receiving .suspected incident of resident abuse .the Administrator/DON [Director of Nursing]/Designee will conduct an investigation .Witness reports will be in writing. Witnesses will be required to sign and date such reports .copy of .must be attached to the Abuse Investigation Report . Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Reporting & Investigating Policy dated 10/27/2022, showed .All reports of resident abuse .are…
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 · D2022-12-07 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Resident #21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses including Dementia, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Schizophrenia, Morbid Obesity, Cognitive Communication Deficit, Bipolar Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. The diagnosis of Impulse Disorder was added on 9/19/2019 and the diagnosis of Psychotic Disorder was added 10/12/2021. Review of a PASARR dated 6/11/2012 showed a level 1 PASARR was completed and included the diagnosis of Schizophrenia. Resident #21 was not referred for level 2 services due to the resident not requiring specialized services. Review of the medical record showed a new PASARR had not been submitted to the stated designated authority after the diagnosis of Impulse Disorder was added on 9/19/2019 or the diagnosis of Psychotic Disorder was added on 10/12/2021. During an interview on 12/6/2022 at 10:25 AM, MDS Coordinator #2 confirmed a new PASARR had not been submitted to the state designated authority after the new mental health diagnosis 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 · Dcited before2022-12-07 · 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 ensure appropriate infection control practices were maintained for 1 resident (#115) of 5 residents reviewed for transmission-based precautions which had the potential to affect 11 of 116 residents. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Clostridium Difficile (an infection spread by bacterial spores found within the feces), revised on 10/2018, showed Measures are taken to prevent the occurrence of Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) among residents. Precautions are taken while caring for residents with C.difficile [CDI] to prevent transmission to others residents .placed on contact precautions . Review of the facility's policy titled, Isolation, Cohorting, And Transmission Based Precautions, dated 9/28/2021, showed .Transmission-Based Precautions shall be used when caring for residents who are documented or suspected to have communicable diseases or infections that can be…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2019-08-07 · 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, grievance report review, and interviews, the facility failed to immediately report an allegation of abuse for 1 resident (#33) of 24 residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: Review of the facility policy FREEDOM OF ABUSE, NEGLECT AND EXPLOITATION STANDARD revised 11/2017, revealed .Report allegations or suspected abuse .immediately to: Administrator, Other Officials in accordance with State Law .Reporting-All employees are required to immediately notify the administrative or nursing supervisory staff that is on duty of any complaint, allegation .of resident abuse .investigation can be undertaken promptly .The Director of Nursing Services, Administrator, or designee will .Ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse .are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after allegation is made . Medical record review revealed Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Diabetes Mellitus Type 2, Alzheimer's…
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 before2019-08-07 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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, grievance report review, and interviews, the facility failed to initiate an immediate investigation of an allegation of abuse for 1 resident (#33) of 24 residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: Review of the facility policy FREEDOM OF ABUSE, NEGLECT AND EXPLOITATION STANDARDS, revised 11/2017, revealed .This facility will conduct a comprehensive investigation of any employee suspected of abuse .of residents and will implement disciplinary action according to company policy. Any employee, who is accused of resident abuse .will be suspended at the time of allegation, pending further investigation .INVESTIGATION: OF ALLEGED ABUSE .When .reports of abuse .occur, an investigation is immediately warranted .All alleged violations involving .abuse .will be thoroughly investigated by the facility under the direction of the Administrator and in accordance with state and federal law . Medical record review revealed Resident #33 was admitted to the facility…
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 before2019-08-07 · 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
Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to perform proper hand hygiene after providing direct resident care for 1 resident (#32) of 3 residents during resident care of 17 sampled residents. The findings include: Review of the facility policy Hand Hygiene, revised 2011, revealed .Hand hygiene is generally considered the most important single procedure for preventing healthcare-associated infections .waterless handwashing products. If hands are not visibly soiled, use an alcohol based hand tub for routinely decontaminating hands in all clinical situations . Observation of Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #3 on 8/6/19 at 2:58 PM, in the resident's room, revealed after CNA #3 donned gloves to provide peri-care (personal hygiene care) to Resident #32. Continued observation revealed the CNA then assisted the resident to bed, adjusted the resident's call light, removed the contaminated gloves, and without washing the hands, took a lift device out of the resident's room, and placed it into the 200 hall bathroom. Interview with CNA #3 on 8/6/19 at…
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 CARERITE CENTERS — 34 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 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
The other 33 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.6★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD FRIEDMAN FAMILY 2017 TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 37% | since 12/01/2019 |
| NEAL EINHORN FAMILY 2017 TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 37% | since 12/01/2019 |
| SCHWARTZ, ELIEZER | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 7% | since 12/01/2019 |
| EINHORN, NEAL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 12/01/2019 |
| FRIEDMAN, MARK | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 12/01/2019 |
| ADDERLY, DARREN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| CLARK, ANASTASIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/01/2025 |
| HOPKINS, HOLLY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/14/2024 |
| ZUCKER, YOSSIE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/01/2019 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 16 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $2.7M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 18% 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. 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 445391. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-03, 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.