Waters Of Memphis A Rehabilitation & Nursing Ctr
6500 Kirby Gate Boulevard, Memphis, TN 38119 · For profit - Individual · 90 certified beds · (901) 752-0772 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Sep 2023
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- the CMS record shows $5,293 in federal fines (most recent 2023-09-18)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (60%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 21% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
- its last standard health inspection was over 3 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
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) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 2.0% | 14.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 7.2% | 6.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 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 | 31.0% | 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 | 2.8% | 3.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.0% | 17.2% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.4% | 31.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.6% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.2% | 5.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 14.6% | 20.0% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 21.3% | 16.8% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.7% | 1.7% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 78.9% | 79.8% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.4% | 22.6% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.8% | 11.2% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.78 | 1.67 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.75 | 1.56 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
47.8% 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 90 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 61.1% 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 36 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 0.61 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 89% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 29% 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 | 47.8%CMS range 38.1–57.0 | 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 | 10.6%CMS range 7.6–14.5 | 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 | 61.1% | 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 | 66.7% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 58.3% | 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 | 92.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.1% | 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 | 7.1%CMS range 3.8–14.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.45 | 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 90 beds and averages 82.9 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.40 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.39 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.87 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.95 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.58 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.45 to 0.22 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 60% is well above the national median of 45%. 3 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 3 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-18 · tag F0835 — failed to run the facility competently — isolatedAdminister the facility in a manner that enables it to use its resources effectively and efficiently.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, personnel file review, facility document review and interview, Administration failed to ensure that nursing services were provided by qualified personnel when the facility hired an imposter nurse (Imposter Nurse A) to function as a Registered Nurse (RN) using another RN's (RN C) Tennessee license. Imposter Nurse A was hired on 02/21/2025 and worked at the facility from 02/25/2025 to 04/23/2025. The findings include: Review of a facility policy title Abuse Program Policy dated 05/15/2023, revealed .Pre-employment Screening of Potential Employees.Prior to a new employee starting a working schedule.Obtain a copy of the state license of any individual being hired for a position.Complete a criminal background check per state statute on all new hires. Review of an Application for Employment dated 02/05/2025, revealed a Social Security Number (SSN) block was scratched out and a SSN was printed above the block that did not match the I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification) form and a birth date that did not match the I-9 form. Review of the Background…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-27 · 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 policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of an injury of unknown origin for 1 of 3 (Resident #1) sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility policy titled ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAM, dated 10/22/2022, revealed .It is the policy of this facility to prevent resident abuse, neglect, mistreatment and misappropriation of resident property. Each resident receives care and services in a person-centered environment in which all individuals are treated as human beings .Investigation .Any incident or allegation involving abuse or mistreatment will result in an abuse investigation .For any incident involving suspicion of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment, the Administrator or person appointed by the Administrator will gather facts prior to making a determination to conduct an abuse investigation .The final investigation report will be completed within the required timeframe allowed by Tennessee Department…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-09-14 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to maintain and enhance resident's dignity and respect when 7 of 24 (Registered Nurse (RN) #1, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, LPN #2, Unit Manager #1, Unit Manager #2, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1, CNA #4, CNA #6) staff members failed to knock before entering resident rooms, when 1 of 24 (LPN #1) staff members stood to assist Resident #45 with meals, when 1 of 24 (CNA #4) staff members did not use proper courtesy titles, and when 1 of 4 (RN #1) nurses failed to provide privacy for 1 of 5 (Resident #46) residents observed during medication administration. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Dignity, revealed .will not refer .as feeder .Staff will not stand to feed .Privacy .Staff will knock prior to entering a resident's room .Staff will provide privacy for residents .curtain must be pulled anytime .resident needs .privacy . Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Resident Rights, revealed .The facility must care for you in a manner and environment that…
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 · Ecited before2023-09-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was served under sanitary conditions when 5 of 24 staff members Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA#1, #2, #3, #4, #6) failed to perform hand hygiene during meal services. The number of meal trays served on 9/10/2023 for lunch were 73. The number of meal trays served for breakfast on 9/11/2023 were 72. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Meal Service, dated 9/5/2023 revealed .It is the policy of this facility that all residents are provided adequate supervision to meet each residents nursing and personal care needs including meals service and assistance with eating .Staff providing direct care by passing meals/trays will wash their hands before serving the food .There is no bare hand contact with ready to eat foods . Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Hand Hygiene Guidelines, revealed .When hands are visibly soiled, exposure to a spore forming organism has been suspected .hands should be washed with a non-microbial or anti-microbial soap . Review of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-14 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide effective housekeeping to maintain a sanitary environment for 3 of 53 (room [ROOM NUMBER], #230, and #307) resident rooms observed. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's undated policy titled, GENERAL CLEANING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES RESIDENT ROOM - CLEAN revealed .To provide a clean, attractive and safe environment for residents .Clean .toilet .Dust Mop the Resident Room and Bathroom Floors .Wet Mop the Resident Room and Bathroom Floors .Clean and Sanitize Toilets .Use a separate cloth and a disinfectant to wipe every surface area of the commode including the tank .Flush the toilet as the final step to insure all cleaner is removed from the toilet bowl water . 2. Observations in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 9/10/2023 at 10:16 AM and 12:57 PM, 9/11/2023 at 7:50 AM, and 9/12/2023 at 12:35 PM, revealed a floor fan with a heavy build-up of dust particles hanging on the front and back casing of the fan against the wall at the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-14 · 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 policy review, medical record review, facility investigation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' were free from abuse for 1 of 5 (Resident #67) sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Prevention dated 1/19/2017, revealed .It is the policy of the facility to prevent resident abuse, neglect, mistreatment and misappropriation of resident property. Each resident receives care and services in a person-centered environment in which all individuals are treated as human beings. Abuse is the willful infliction of injury, intimidation or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, mental anguish or deprivation by an individual, including caretaker .Verbal Abuse .Any use of oral, written or gestured language that willfully includes disparaging and derogatory terms to residents or their families or within their hearing distance, to describe residents, regardless of their age, ability to comprehend or disability .…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-14 · 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 policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to timely report an allegation of abuse for 1 of 5 (Resident #67) sampled residents reviewed for allegation of abuse. The findings include: 1. Review of the policy titled, Abuse Prevention Program, dated 1/19/2017, revealed .It is the policy of this facility to prevent resident abuse .The following procedures shall be implemented when an employee or agent becomes aware of abuse or neglect of a resident, or of an allegation of suspected abuse or neglect of a resident .Abuse Reporting .All personnel must promptly report any incident or suspected incident of resident abuse .Any alleged violations involving mistreatment, abuse .misappropriation of resident's property .MUST be reported to the Administrator and Director of Nursing .the person(s) observing an incident of resident abuse or suspecting resident abuse must IMMEDIATELY report such incidents to the Charge Nurse, regardless of time lapse since the incident occurred. The Charge…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-09-14 · 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 policy review, medical record review, review of facility investigation, and interview, the facility failed to provide documentation for an investigation of an allegation of abuse and failed to ensure a thorough investigation was completed for 1 of 5 (Resident #67) sampled residents reviewed for an allegation of abuse. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Abuse Prevention, dated 1/19/2017, revealed, .It is the policy of the facility to prevent resident abuse, neglect, mistreatment, and misappropriation of resident property. The following Procedures shall be implemented when an employee .becomes aware of abuse or neglect of a resident, or of an allegation of suspected abuse or neglect of a resident by a 3rd party .All incidents will be documented, whether or not abuse occurred, was alleged or suspected .Any incident or allegation involving abuse or mistreatment will result in an abuse investigation .the Administrator or designee will investigate the allegation and obtain a copy…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-14 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide care and services for an indwelling urinary catheter (a tube in the bladder that drains the urine) for 2 of 2 (Resident #22 and #41) sampled residents reviewed for indwelling catheters. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Perineal / Incontinence Care, dated 1/1/2020, revealed .Perform hand hygiene .Put on gloves .Wash all soiled skin areas, washing from front to back, rinse and dry very well, especially between skin folds .Remove gloves .Wash hands . Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Indwelling Urinary Catheter Care, revealed .Wash hands and don gloves .Assist the resident to lie on back and expose perineal area .Soap one cloth at a time and wash genitalia using proper aseptic technique .In male resident, wash the penis first .Cleanse catheter area by washing urethral area first followed by cleansing proximal 1/3 of catheter. Change cloth as necessary .Rinse area…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices to prevent the spread of infection were used when 2 of 4 (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, and LPN #5) nurses failed to perform hand hygiene and clean equipment after use during medication administration. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Hand Hygiene Guidelines revealed .The scope of this guideline includes all interdisciplinary members .and individuals that partake in the resident's plan of care .Handwashing items .soap and water .Paper towels .Waterless Alcohol Based Agent .When hands are visibly soiled, exposure to a spore forming organism has been suspected .before and after eating, and after using the restroom hands should be washed .Allow hands to completely dry prior to applying gloves or interacting with a resident . 2. Observation in the resident's room on 9/12/2023 at 4:59 PM, revealed LPN #5 performed hand hygiene, removed Resident #32's medications from the med cart, placed the medication in a plastic medication cup,…
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 · F2021-07-14 · tag F0802 — failed to prepare enough nourishing food — widespreadProvide sufficient support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to deliver meal trays to residents in a timely manner resulting in late meals. This had the potential to affect the 73 of the 78 residents who had received a tray from the Kitchen. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Dining Services dated 12/6/2016, revealed .The Food and Nutrition Services department will have a process in place to assure residents receive meals in a timely manner with appropriate assistance and supervision . Observation of the halls on 7/12/2021 revealed lunch meal trays were scheduled to be delivered on the 300 Hall at 12:45 PM, on the 400 Hall at 12:50 PM, on the 100 Hall at 1:00 PM, and on the 200 Hall at 1:15 PM. Observation on 7/12/2021 revealed the first meal was delivered on the 300 Hall to a resident at 1:38 PM. The meal was 53 minutes late. Observation on the 100 Hall revealed the first meal was delivered to a resident at 2:08 PM. The meal was 1 hour and 8 minutes late. The first meal tray was delivered on the 200 Hall at 2:28 PM. The meal was 1…
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 before2021-07-14 · 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 policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served under sanitary conditions as evidenced by undated food items, a dirty deep fryer, meat slicer, and mixer, inappropriate tray line serving temperatures, and 2 of 13 staff members (Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 and #2) failed to distribute and serve food in a sanitary manner during dining. This had the potential to affect the 73 of the 78 residents who had received a tray from the Kitchen. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled,Table Top Mixer, dated 3/26/2012, revealed .The mixer will be cleaned and sanitized after each use . Review of the facility's policy titled,Food Slicer, dated 3/26/2012, revealed .This machine must be thoroughly cleaned and sanitized after each use . Review of the facility's policy titled, Deep Fryer, dated 3/26/2012, revealed .The deep fryer will be cleaned as needed .to ensure food safety. To produce evenly cooked, perfectly browned fried products keep the oil in the deep fryer clean and clear . Observation 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 before2019-06-19 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served under sanitary conditions when dietary staff did not properly restrain hair and when food items were stored in the refrigerator and freezer uncovered, unlabeled, and undated. The facility had a census of 82 residents, with 80 of those residents receiving a tray from the kitchen. The findings include: The facility's .Dress Code policy dated 3/27/12 documented, .Food employees wear a hair covering which covers all hair completely. [NAME] guards must be used for employees with facial hair . The facility's .Cold Storage Areas policy dated 3/26/12 documented, .Date, label and properly secure all products removed from original containers . Observations in the kitchen on 6/17/19 beginning at 5:50 AM, revealed: a. Dietary Staff #1 was in the kitchen during breakfast preparation with no beard cover over his facial hair. b. Ice filled glasses stored in the freezer uncovered, unlabeled, and undated. c. Trays of pancakes, turkey sausage, and bacon uncovered, unlabeled, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$5,293 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $5,293 — penalty dated 2023-09-18
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 INFINITY HEALTHCARE CONSULTING — 69 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 1 of 5 | 2.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
The other 68 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.0★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 68; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GUBIN ENTERPRISES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 07/01/2021 |
| CARR, KRISTIAN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 09/12/2022 |
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 $2.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 21% 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 445522. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2023-09-14, 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.