The Health Center At Richland Place
504 Elmington Avenue, Nashville, TN 37205 · Non profit - Other · 107 certified beds · (615) 292-4900 Medicare only — no Medicaid
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 2019
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (19) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $56,378 in federal fines (most recent 2024-03-25)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 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 | 10.4% | 14.0% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.4% | 6.1% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.0% | 0.7% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.6% | 1.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.3% | 13.8% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.6% | 3.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.4% | 17.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 24.4% | 31.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 93.6% | 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 | 20.2% | 20.0% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.9% | 16.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 1.7% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.1% | 79.8% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.9% | 22.6% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 4.1% | 11.2% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.75 | 1.67 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.49 | 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.
61.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 415 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 55.8% 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 163 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 1.01 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 97% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 61.9%CMS range 57.4–66.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.9%CMS range 9.0–14.9 | 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 | 55.8% | 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 | 60.1% | 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 | 64.4% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 98.9% | 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 | 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 | 1.1% | 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 | 0.4% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 5.1%CMS range 2.9–7.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.02 | 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 107 beds and averages 97.7 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 9 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 4.34 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.79 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.16 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 3.84 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.55 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.90 to 0.52 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 42% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
19 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-03-25 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and assistance for 1 of 5 (Resident #1) sampled residents reviewed for accident hazards. Resident #1, a non-ambulatory resident with severe cognitive impairment, was left, unattended, sitting on the side of the bed, had an unwitnessed fall, and sustained multiple fractures (left femur, pelvis, left humerus, ribs, and vertebrae). Resident #1 was transferred to the hospital and admitted to level 3 trauma services. The facility's failure to provide adequate supervision and assistance resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ), a situation in which the provider's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation has caused, or is likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident. The Administrator was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on [DATE] at 5:00 PM in the Private Dining Room. The facility was cited at F-689 with a scope and severity of J, which is…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-03-25 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
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, personnel record review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff with appropriate competencies and skill sets to ensure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest level of practicable physical well-being for 1 of 5 (Resident #1) sampled residents reviewed. On 12/11/2023, Resident #1 (severely cognitively impaired, dependent upon staff for bed mobility assistance, and a high-risk for falls) was left, unattended, on the side of the bed, had an unwitnessed fall, and sustained multiple fractures (left femur, pelvis, left humerus, ribs, and vertebrae). Registered Nurse (RN) A and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) F immediately went to Resident #1's room and found the resident on the floor. No post-fall assessment was conducted before RN A and CNA F lifted the resident from the floor to a wheelchair and then from the wheelchair to the bed. Resident #1 moaned with pain and clutched her lift hip. Resident #1 was transferred 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.
- Actual harm · G2019-06-13 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to communicate and document two pressure ulcers causing a delay in care for 6 days. The facility deficient practice resulted in the worsening of 2 pressure ulcers assessed and staged at a 2 on 6/4/19 then again on 6/10/19 at a Stage 4 for 1 of 16 (#55) residents with pressure ulcers resulting in Neglect. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Patient Protection and Response Policy for Allegations/Incidents of Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation of Property and Exploitation, revised 12/11/17 revealed .Medical and emotional support will be made immediately available to any individual suffering either alleged abuse, neglect, misappropriation of patient property or expolitation Neglect: the failure of the facility, its employees, or service providers to provide goods and services necessary to avoid physical harm, mental anguish, or mental illness . Medical record review revealed Resident #55 was admitted…
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.
- Actual harm · G2019-06-13 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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 communicate, document and treat the presence of 2 pressure pressure ulcers assessed and staged at a 2 on 6/4/19 by a Hospice Nurse and later by the facility on 6/10/19 at a Stage 4 for 1 of 16 (#55) residents with pressure ulcers resulting in HARM. The findings include: Review of facility policy, Skin Integrity Prevention and Management Assessment, dated 1/1/03 revealed .skin assessments are completed on all patients by the licensed nurse and documented using the Weekly Skin Assessment Record . Review of facility policy, Skin Monitoring Assessment Guidelines, dated 1/1/03, revealed .daily monitoring will enable staff to remain alert to potential changes in the skin condition . Medical record review revealed Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Malignant Neoplasm of Endometrium, Secondary Malignant Neoplasm of Genital Organs, Encounter for Attention to Colostomy, Type 2…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2019-06-13 · 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 review of facility policy, medical record review, review of the facility investigation, review of hospital data, observation and interview, the facility failed to provide supervision to prevent a fall; and failed to provide a complete investigation of the fall for 1 of 20 residents (#36) with falls. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Accidents and Incidents-Investigation and Reporting, revised 7/2017, revealed .All accidents and incidents involving residents .occurring on our premises shall be investigated . Further review revealed .The following data, as applicable, shall be included on the Report of Incident/Accident form .The circumstances surrounding the accident or incident .The disposition of the injury (i.e. transferred to hospital .) .Any corrective action taken .Follow-up information .Other pertinent data as necessary or required . Review of the facility policy, Administering Medications through a Small Volume (handheld) Nebulizer, revised 10/2010, revealed .remain with 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 · D2025-08-06 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide care and services to promote privacy for 2 of 5 (Resident #1 and Resident #4) sampled residents reviewed for dignity. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's Patient Rights document in the admission handbook dated 9/2024, revealed .PRIVACY.we provide you with privacy so that you may maintain a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the center.People not directly involved in your medical care will not be present without your consent.Privacy is also maintained during toileting, bathing and other activities of personal hygiene.Each center shall respect a patient's right to the use and quiet enjoyment of his or her personal room.patient's shall have the right to close the door to their room if they wish. 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including…
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 · D2025-08-06 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when 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 Based on policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to follow Physician's Orders for oxygen administration and failed to store, change, and date respiratory supplies for 2 of 3 (Resident #1 and #2) sampled residents reviewed for respiratory care. The findings include; Review of the facility's policy titled, Oxygen Administration, dated 2001, revealed .The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for safe oxygen administration.Verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure. Review the physician's orders.for oxygen administration.Portable oxygen cylinder (strapped or secured in a stand). Review of the medical record revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Pneumonia, Acute Respiratory Failure, Congestive Heart Failure, and Nicotine Dependence. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact…
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 · D2025-08-06 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Physician Orders were written and documented when 1 of 3 (Resident #1) sampled residents received medications without a written Physician Order for a respiratory breathing treatment. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, MEDICATION ADMINISTRATION-GENERAL GUIDELINES dated 2/25/2025, revealed .Medications are administered as prescribed in accordance with good nursing principles and practices and only by persons legally authorized to do so .Before administering a medication, the nurse should assure he/she is administering to the correct patient, verify the medication, dose, time and route .The medication administration record (MAR) is always employed during medication administration .the physician's orders are checked .Medications are administered in accordance with written orders of the prescriber . Review of the facility's Patient Rights document in the admission handbook revised…
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 · D2025-08-06 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted 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 Based on policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide care and services to promote privacy of medical records for 2 of 3 (Resident #1 and Resident #3) sampled residents reviewed during medication administration. The findings include: Review of the facility's Patient Rights document dated 9/2024, revealed .MEDICAL RECORDS.A record kept of Physician's Orders, Progress Notes and Professional documentation which is called your Medical Record.your personal and medical records are kept confidential and are used only by individuals involved in your care. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Pneumonia, Acute Respiratory Failure, Congestive Heart Failure, and Nicotine Dependence. Observation on 2nd floor short hall across from the elevators on 8/4/2025 at 4:10 PM, revealed a medication cart with the laptop open showing Resident #1's personal information and medications on the laptop screen.…
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 before2025-08-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on policy review, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline (CDC) review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure practices to prevent the potential spread of infection were maintained for medication administration for 3 of 3 (Resident #1, #2 and #3) sampled residents reviewed receiving medications, when 3 of 3 nurses (Registered Nurse (RN) A, RN B, and Licensed Practical Nuse (LPN) C) failed to clean the site prior to administering a transdermal patch, failed to perform hand hygiene before and after glove use, and failed to disinfect re-usable equipment. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's policy titled, Hand Hygiene, dated 2/2025, revealed .PURPOSE .To decrease the number of microorganisms, preventing cross contamination between staff and patients .Provide hand hygiene before and after contact with each patient .and before and after removal of gloves . Review of the facility's policy titled, SPECIFIC MEDICATION ADMINISTRATION PROCEDURES: Transdermal Drug…
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 before2024-03-25 · 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, and interview, the facility failed to implement appropriate interventions on the care plan for 1 of 5 (Resident #1) sampled residents reviewed. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Patient Care Plans, dated November 2023, revealed, .The center will ensure an interdisciplinary and comprehensive approach to the development of the patients care plan. Patient ' s goals and care preferences will be determined and used to develop their care plan of care .Baseline plan of care within 48 hours of admission addressing the immediate needs of the patient. Must be presented to patient and/or representative in terms they understand . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which include Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, History of Falling, Contusion of Scalp, Subsequent Encounter, Alzheimer's Disease, Psychotic Disturbance, Mood Disturbance, Anxiety, Muscle Weakness, and Other Abnormalities…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-06-23 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure personal items were within the resident's reach for 1 of 38 residents (Resident #57) observed. The findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #57 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation, Congestive Heart Failure, and Gout. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #57 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated no cognitive impairment. Review of the Care Plan dated 3/9/2020, revealed Resident #57 was care planned for .Encourage independence as much as possible/tolerated .Place personal items close to PT [patient] . Observation and interview conducted on 6/21/2021 at 11:29 AM, revealed the resident's reacher which stood upright against the nightstand and the back scratcher was on the table behind Resident #57 out of his reach. Resident #57 stated he wanted his reacher and his back scratcher but he…
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 before2021-06-23 · 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, observation, and interview, the facility failed to implement a care plan for 1 of 11 residents (Resident #106) reviewed for Intravenous (IV) therapy. The findings include: Review of facility policy titled, Care Plan Development, revised 7/3/08, revealed, .B. Procedure: 13. Updating and Revising Care Plans- c. Other Changes: 1) New problems are handled as they arise, and are be added to the current care plan even if the change in condition is not considered significant enough for a complete revision . Review of the medical record, revealed Resident #106 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, Hypertensive Heart Disease, Diastolic Congestive Heart Failure, and Permanent Atrial Fibrillation. Review of the Physician's Order Report dated 5/22/2021 - 6/22/2021, revealed Resident #106 had a physician's order dated 6/11/2021 for, .place midline once - One Time: 07:00 [7:00 AM] - 07:00 PM . Review of the Care Plan dated 6/15/2021,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2021-06-23 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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 follow physician's orders for 1 of 11 residents (Resident #50) reviewed for weekly intravenous dressing changes. The facility also failed to obtain physician's orders for 2 of 11 residents (Resident #84 and #106) reviewed for Intravenous (IV) therapy, and 1 of 29 residents (Resident #344) reviewed for oxygen therapy. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Supplemental Oxygen, dated 1/2005, revealed .the purpose of delivering oxygen by nasal cannula is to .equipment: oxygen concentrator or stationary supply of oxygen .Procedure: check for a complete physician order, explain procedure to patient and family .Patient response to treatment: respiratory status and improvement, vital signs for stabilization or changes . Review of the facility policy titled, Oxygen delivered by Nasal Cannula, dated 10/1999 and revised 1/2005, .Procedure: 1. Check for a complete physician order . 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 · Dcited before2021-06-23 · 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 dispose of a used intravenous (I.V.) medication bag and tubing after administration for 1 of 11 residents (Resident #84) reviewed receiving I.V. therapy. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Network Pharmacy Policy and Procedure; Preparation and General Guidelines, dated 1/1/2019, revealed, .Administer IV solution as directed and complete documentation .Discard used bag at the time of completion or when it is time for the next dose . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #84 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Chronic Diastolic Congestive Heart Failure, Chronic Atrial Fibrillation, and Muscle Weakness. Review of the Care Plan dated 6/18/2021 revealed Resident #84 was care planned for .Administer IV meds/fluids per order/s .Flush, clean and change caps per order .IV care per order-Assess IV dressing every shift for being loose, damp or visibly…
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 · F2019-06-13 · tag F0623 — widespreadProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to send notification of discharge/transfer to the Ombudsman for 3 of 3 (#23, #62, #91) residents reviewed. The findings include: Medical record review revealed Resident #23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Orthopedic Aftercare, Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance and Hypertension. Medical record review of the Matrix Care resident census revealed Resident #23 was discharged /transferred to the hospital on 3/7/19. Medical record review revealed Resident #62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Heart Failure, Dependence on Supplemental Oxygen and Dysphagia. Medical record review of the Matrix Care resident census revealed Resident #62 was discharged /transferred to the hospital on 4/12/19. Medical record review revealed Resident #91 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Orthopedic Aftercare, Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease…
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 · D2019-06-13 · tag F0773 — isolatedProvide or obtain laboratory tests/services when ordered and promptly tell the ordering practitioner of the results.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to identify 1 of 33 residents (#55) prior to obtaining laboratory services. The findings include: Review of facility policy, Laboratory and Diagnostic Test Results-Clinical Protocol, dated 9/2012, revealed .The staff will process requisitions and arrange for tests . Medical record review revealed Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Malignant Neoplasm of Endometrium, Malignant Neoplasm of Genital Organs, Encounter for attention to Colostomy, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Difficulty in Walking. Medical record review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 indicating resident was cognitively intact, understood others with clear comprehension, had adequate vision-saw fine detail, wore glasses, and had no behaviors. Medical record review of the Physician's orders for Resident #55 revealed no laboratory tests…
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 · D2019-06-13 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice services.
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 contract review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to have an interdisciplinary care plan between the hospice services provider and the facility for 1 of 8 residents (#55) receiving hospice services. The findings include: Review of a facility contract, Agreement between Hospice and Facility, dated 6/12/08, revealed .Hospice will prepare a care plan for that patient within two (2) working days and deliver a copy of it to the Facility . Medical record review revealed Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Malignant Neoplasm of Endometrium, Malignant Neoplasm of Genital Organs, Malignant Neoplasm of Other Specified Sites, Encounter for Attention to Colostomy, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus without complications, Edema, and Difficulty in Walking. Medical record review of the Physician's orders, dated 6/4/19, revealed Hospice to evaluate and treat as indicated. Medical record review of the Nursing Care Plan, revised 6/11/19, revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2019-06-13 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to update the daily posted staffing and census on 6/8/19 and 6/9/19. The findings include: Observation on 6/10/19 at 8:39 AM on the main hallway wall revealed the posted staffing and census was dated 6/7/19. Interview with the Director Of Nursing on 6/13/19 at 5:29 PM in the conference room confirmed .we usually have the weekend admission Nurse to post the daily staffing and census. She took the weekend off and we got somebody to cover the admission part but forgot to update them on that part [posting the daily staffing and census sheet daily] .
“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
$56,378 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $56,378 — penalty dated 2024-03-25
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 NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORPORATION — 69 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 4.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 3.5 | -1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 68 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 68; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| AKERS, CLARK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/13/2024 |
| BAILEY, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/01/2013 |
| GIOIA, MINNA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/08/2024 |
| HOLZMAN, BARBARA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/10/2023 |
| MAY, LYNN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/01/2010 |
| MCNABB, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/05/2021 |
| TARLETON, BENNETT | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/14/2025 |
| WERT, JANE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 05/08/2024 |
| WILSON, BLAIR | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 05/01/2004 |
| NHC-OP LP | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 07/01/1992 |
| TENNESSEE HEALTHCARE ADVISORS, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/1992 |
| DODSON, VICKI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2019 |
| FORTI, ROBERT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/08/2023 |
| HARRIS, HUNTER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/22/2018 |
| KIDD, BRIAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2019 |
| SHELLY, TIMOTHY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 06/01/1998 |
| THOMPSON, INDIANNA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/30/2012 |
| VINCENT, BRANDON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/19/2024 |
| NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORPORATION | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/1992 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 25 rows in the source record cover these 19 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
3 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.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TN
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Tennessee Medicaid page for homes that do.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 445166. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-13, 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.