Trevecca Center For Rehabilitation And Healing LLC
329 Murfreesboro Rd, Nashville, TN 37210 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 240 certified beds · (615) 244-6900 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- 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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
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 | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 16.4% | 14.0% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.6% | 6.1% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.1% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.4% | 1.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 19.7% | 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 | 2.1% | 3.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.6% | 17.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.6% | 31.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 85.7% | 94.5% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.0% | 5.0% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.5% | 20.0% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.3% | 16.8% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.2% | 1.7% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 48.0% | 79.8% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.6% | 22.6% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.8% | 11.2% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.07 | 1.67 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.09 | 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.
51.9% 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 147 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 65.0% 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 140 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 0.35 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 59% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 51.9%CMS range 43.8–59.2 | 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 | 9.9%CMS range 7.2–14.0 | 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 | 65.0% | 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 | 57.9% | 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 | 52.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 99.2% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 0.5% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.4% | 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 | 6.7%CMS range 3.9–11.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.06 | 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 240 beds and averages 230.6 residents a day — about 96% occupied, or roughly 9 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.47 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.49 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.00 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 3.02 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.65 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.51 to 0.43 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-21 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
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 make prompt efforts to resolve grievances for missing personal belongings for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Residents #36 and #155). The findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis which included Multiple Sclerosis. Review of the Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #36 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated no cognitive impairment. During an interview on 6/13/2023 at 10:28 AM, Family Member #6 stated she had reported to Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 Resident #36 was missing an electric razor charging cord. During a telephone interview on 6/14/2023 at 10:29 AM, LPN #1 stated Family Member #6 had gone to Resident #36's previous room and could not find the cord to his electric razor. LPN #1 told Family Member #6 to call the Housekeeping 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 · D2023-06-21 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
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 a written bed-hold notice to the resident and the resident's representative at the time of hospitalization for 5 of 5 (Resident #91, Resident # 118, Resident #131, Resident #137, and Resident #224) sampled residents reviewed for hospitalization. Review of the facility policy titled, Bed-Holds and Returns, dated 5/18/2023 revealed, .Residents and /or representatives are informed [in writing] of the facility and state [if applicable] bed-hold policies .All residents/representative are provided written information regarding the facility and state bed-hold policies, which address holding or reserving a resident's bed during periods of absence [hospitalization or therapeutic leave] . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #91 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Aftercare following joint replacement surgery, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with hypoglycemia,…
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 · D2023-06-21 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to have a care plan conference meeting with the resident or resident's representative for 6 of 6 (Residents #30, #88, #91, #103, #137, #150) sampled residents reviewed. The findings include: Review of the undated facility policy titled Care Plans Comprehensive revealed, .A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident The comprehensive, person-centered care plan is developed within seven (7) days of the completion of the required MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment (Admission, Annual or Significant Change in Status), and no more than 21 days after admission .Each resident's comprehensive person-centered care plan is consistant with the resident's rights to participate in the development and implementation of his or her plan of care . Review of the medical record…
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 · D2023-06-21 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 59 (Resident #11 and Resident #27) sampled residents received their showers/ baths as scheduled, and the facility failed to ensure 1 of 59 sampled residents (Resident #27) had clean and groomed fingernails. The findings include: Review of the policy titled, Bath, Shower/Tub dated 5/19/2023 revealed .The purposes of this procedure are to promote cleanliness, provide comfort to the resident and to observe the condition of the resident's skin .Assist the resident into the bath chair, if applicable .Assist with dressing and grooming as needed .If resident refuses the shower/tub bath, the reason(s) why and the intervention taken .The signature and title of the person recording the date . Review of the policy titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), Supporting dated 5/19/2023 revealed .Resident will be provided with care, treatment and services as appropriate to maintain or improve their ability to carry out activities of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-21 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing 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 medical record review and interview, the facilty failed to ensure proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain vision for 1 of 59 (Resident #155) residents reviewed for visual decline. The findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #155 was admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Generalized Epilepsy, Heart Failure, and Hypertension. Review of the Comprehensive Care Plan revealed Resident #155 had a focus for .resident has impaired visual function .arrange consultation with eye care practitioner as required . Review of the Nursing Progress Note dated 1/25/2022 revealed, .Resident informed nurse that he was concerned about his previous loss of vision to his right eye r/t [related to] a history of seizure activity. Resident expressed that he wanted to see a specialist for his eye. Signee informed resident that she would make NP [nurse practitioner] aware . Review of the Physician Progress Notes dated 8/3/2022 revealed .Reported…
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 · D2023-06-21 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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, observation, and interview, the facility failed to follow physician orders for 1 of 1 sampled residents (Resident #219) related to therapeutic diet. The findings include: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #219 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Parkinson's Disease, Dysphagia, Unspecified Severe Protein-Calorie Malnutrition, and Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed coughing or choking during meals or when swallowing medications and complaints of difficulty or pain when swallowing. Review of the physician's orders dated 6/8/2023, revealed .Regular diet Mechanically Altered Ground texture, Nectar Thickened Liquids consistency . Observation on 6/20/2023 at 10:29 AM, revealed Resident #219 drinking a [named brand supplement drink] drink while watching television. During an observation and interview on 6/20/2023 at 10:35 AM in the door way of Resident #219's room, Resident #219…
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 · D2023-06-21 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
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 and medical record review, the facility failed to adequately monitor for side effects or behaviors for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #27) reviewed for unnecessary medications. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Psychotropic Medication Use, dated 3/8/2023 revealed, .Residents will not receive medications that are not clinically indicated to treat a specific condition .Drugs in the following categories are considered psychotropic medication and are subject to prescribing, monitoring, and review requirements specific to psychotropic medications .Antidepressants . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmission on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Fracture of Tibia or Fibula following insertion of Orthopedic Implant, Infection of the Skin and Subcutaneous Tissue, Morbid Obesity, and Hypertension. Review of the Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-21 · tag F0800 — isolatedProvide each resident with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility dietary department failed to maintain and serve hot food at or greater than 135 degrees Fahrenheit (F) for 1 of 2 meal service observed. The findings include: Review of the undated facility policy titled, Food Production and Food Safety revealed .All hot food items must be cooked to appropriate internal temperatures, held, and served at a temperature of at least 135 F . During an observation on 6/12/2023 at 11:17 AM in the dietary department, the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) was taking temperatures of the food on the steam table. During observation and interview on 6/12/2023 in the dietary department beginning at 11:40 AM through 11:42 AM, with the CDM present, the mid-day meal trayline service was in progress. Further observations of food temperatures revealed the chicken noodle soup was 130 degrees F, tomato soup was 129 degrees F, and the vegetable beef soup was 129 degrees F. Further observation revealed one tray cart had already been sent to the 500 hall. During an interview on 6/14/2023 at 9:52 AM,…
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 · D2023-06-21 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
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 accommodate dietary preferences for 5 of 5 (Resident #157, #170, #185, #186 and #194)sampled residents reviewed for dietary preferences. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Resident Food Preferences, dated 5/18/2023, revealed, .determine current food preferences .If resident refuses or is unhappy with his or her diet, the staff will discuss a plan that the resident is satisfied with . Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Dining/Meal Service revealed, .A meal identification and food preferences card (meal ID (identification) card/ticket) will be used to properly identify each individual's needs, including food and beverage preferences .permanent meal ID card/ticket should include the name of the individual, diet order, beverage preferences, food dislikes and any other applicable diet information . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #157 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]…
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 · D2023-06-21 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the dietary department failed to maintain and clean the range hoods during 1 of 3 observations. The findings include: Review of the undated facility's policy titled, Cleaning Instructions revealed .Stove hoods and filters will be cleaned according to a cleaning schedule, or at least monthly . During observation in the dietary department on 6/12/2023 10:31 AM, the range hood was covered with clear and shiny debris. During an interview on 6/12/2023 at 12:05 PM, the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) confirmed the range hood was covered with clear and shiny debris. The CDM stated the hood was cleaned only twice a year. The last time it was clean was 2/9/2023.
- Potential for harm · D2019-04-10 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to respectfully address 1 resident (#212) out of 45 residents requiring feeding assistance, referred to as a feeder. The findings include: Facility policy review, Quality of Life-Dignity, dated 2001 and revised 2009, revealed .Staff shall speak respectfully to residents at all times, including addressing the resident by his or her name of choice and not labeling or referring to the resident by his or her room number, diagnosis, or care needs . Medical record review revealed Resident #212 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Quadriplegia, Muscle Weakness, Depression, and Pain. Medical record review of Resident #212's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], the Significant Change MDS dated [DATE], and the Annual MDS dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Further record review of the MDS revealed 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 · D2019-04-10 · 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, facility investigation review, observation and interview, the facility failed to investigate an incident which involved a non-facility hypodermic syringe for 1 resident (#13) of 69 reviewed. The findings include: Review of the facility policy Accidents/Incidents Investigations dated 10/7/17 revealed .An investigation of the accident/incident will be made by the designated staff person . Medical record review revealed Resident #13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Hepatitis C (liver disease), Encephalopathy, Psychoactive Substance Abuse, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Medical record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #13 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 which indicated no cognitive impairment. Medical record review of the physician orders dated 2/16/19 revealed .Urine Drug Screen . Continued review revealed no orders for amphetamines. Medical record…
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 · D2018-03-14 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — isolatedProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of the facility staffing schedules and interview, the facility failed to provide sufficient staffing to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of each resident on 3/11/18 for 1 floor (5th) of 4 floors reviewed. Findings include: Record review of the facility staffing for 3/11/18 revealed 4 Certified Nurse Aides (CNAs) were scheduled for the 7:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift with 56 residents on the 5th floor. Medical record review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #63 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15/15, (cognitively intact), and required total 1 person assistance for toileting. Interview with Resident #63 on 3/12/18 at 8:29 AM in the resident's room on the fifth floor revealed .they are not answering the call light .takes 40-45 minutes to answer and I can't hold it and wet myself . Medical record review of the Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #54 had a BIMS score of 13/15,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2018-03-14 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on facility policy review, observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain a clean environment for 1 of 5 observed fans on the 5th floor. Findings include: Review of the facility policy Infection Control Standard Precautions effective date 11/1/07 revealed .Environmental Control .Ensure that environmental equipment and other frequently touched surfaces are appropriately cleaned . Observation on 3/12/18 at 3:12 PM in the room of Resident # 5 revealed a table top fan on the bed side table in operation and directed at the resident seated in power wheelchair. Further observation revealed the fan grate had a heavy accumulation of hanging debris. Interview with Assistant Director of Nursing #2 on 3/12/18 at 3:19 PM in Resident #5's room confirmed the fan was dirty and was directed toward the resident.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CARERITE CENTERS — 34 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 3.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
The other 33 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.6★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TREVECCA VENTURES TN LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 03/01/2017 |
| YZH LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 03/01/2017 |
| EINHORN, NEAL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 03/01/2017 |
| FRIEDMAN, MARK | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/01/2017 |
| DISNEY, SHERI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2025 |
| EME, IJAGHA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| TREECE, BRITTANY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/16/2023 |
| MD FRIEDMAN FAMILY 2017 TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/25/2025 |
| NEAL EINHORN FAMILY 2017 TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/25/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 71% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $3.9M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% 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 445112. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2023-06-21, 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.