Park Rest Hardin County Health Center
85 Shelby Drive, Savannah, TN 38372 · Government - County · 62 certified beds · (731) 925-1181 Medicaid only — no Medicare
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0604, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing 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 | 4 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 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 5 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 | 3.3% | 6.1% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.6% | 0.7% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.8% | 1.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 13.8% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.3% | 3.4% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 22.5% | 17.2% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 46.7% | 31.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.3% | 94.5% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.7% | 5.0% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 25.8% | 20.0% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 18.1% | 16.8% | 17.1% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.39 | 1.67 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.85 | 1.56 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.12 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 8% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% 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 | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| 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 — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — This nursing home is not required to submit data for the Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program. | — | ||
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 62 beds and averages 36.3 residents a day — about 59% occupied, or roughly 26 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 4.25 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.24 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.55 is at or above 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 3.40 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.60 on weekdays — 26% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.24 to 0.24 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-06-10 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — patternHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on policy review, facility working schedule review, calculated time by calendar day list review, Employee Timesheet review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure there was Registered Nurse (RN) coverage for 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week, for 37 days ranging from January 2025 through June 2025. The census was 35. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility undated policy titled, Nursing Staff-Staffing Policy, revealed .The facility will assure that there is sufficient qualified nursing staff available at all times to provide nursing and related services to meet the resident's needs safely and in a manner that promotes each resident's rights, physical, mental and psychological well-being .The facility will provide at a minimum .55 hours of licensed nursing staff per resident day . 2. Review of the facility Nurses Working Schedule for January 2025, February 205, March 2025, April 2025, May 2025, and June 2025, revealed there was no RN scheduled for 1/4, 1/5, 1/11, 1/12, 1/18,1/19, 1/26, 2/1, 2/2, 2/8, 2/9, 2/15, 2/16, 2/22, 2/23, 3/1, 3/2, 3/8, 3/9, 3/15,…
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 · D2025-06-10 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on policy review, facility investigation review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse and failed to report to local law enforcement, Adult Protective Services (APS), and the Long-Term Care Ombudsman, within 24 hours for the allegations of suspected abuse for 5 of 5 (Resident #11, #12, #17, #19, and #25) sampled residents reviewed for abuse and resident rights. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility undated policy titled, Resident Rights, revealed The resident has the right to a dignified existence, self-determination .The resident has the right to be treated with respect and dignity . Review of the facility undated policy titled, ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND EXPLOITATION, revealed Each resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation .Residents must not be subject to abuse by anyone, including but not limited to .facility staff, other residents, consultants, contractors, volunteers, or staff…
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 · D2025-06-10 · 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, and interviews, the facility failed to follow a physician's order related to contact isolation precautions for 1 of 2 residents sampled (Resident #12) reviewed for infection control. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility policy titled, Infection Control and Prevention Policy, dated 2017, revealed It is the policy of this facility to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection by providing a safe and sanitary environment .A resident with an infection .shall be placed in isolation precautions . 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis including Alzheimer, Cerebrovascular Disease, Hemiplegia, and Polyneuropathy. Review of a Microbiology report dated 6/8/2025, revealed Resident #12 had a urine culture that grew out Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamases (ESBL) (bacteria 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-10-25 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — patternHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on policy review, facility working schedule, calculated time by calendar day list, and the facility detailed hours report, the facility failed to ensure there was Registered Nurse (RN) coverage for 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week, for 29 days ranging from April 1, 2023, through 10/20/2023. The facility's census was 39. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's undated policy titled, The facility will assure that there is sufficient qualified nursing staff available at all times to provide nursing and related services to meet the resident's needs safely and in a manner that promotes each resident's rights, physical, mental and psychological well-being .The facility will provide at a minimum .55 hours of licensed nursing staff per resident day . 2. Review of the facility's Nurses Working Schedule for April 2023, revealed there was no RN scheduled to work 8 consecutive hours on 4/1/2023, 4/2/2023, 4/8/2023, 4/9/2023, 4/15/2023, 4/16/2023, 4/22/2023, 4/23/2023, 4/29/2023 and 4/30/2023. Review of the facility's Calculated Time by Calendar Day, report for April…
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 · D2023-10-25 · 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
Based on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to maintain or enhance resident dignity and respect when 4 of 10 staff members (Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1, CNA #2, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) observed during dining failed to use courtesy titles to address residents, failed to provide privacy while assisting with dining, and stood over residents while assisting with dining. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Residents Dignity revealed, .Dignity .means .our interactions .should maintain/enhance his/her self-esteem and self-worth .ensure dignity is provided by .pulling privacy curtain and closing door .respect residents space .knock on door .request permission to enter room .address the resident with the name of their choice . 2. Observation in Resident #35's room during dining on 10/23/2023 at 11:49 AM, revealed CNA #1 entered the room with Resident 35's meal tray and failed to knock on door or acknowledge self before entering. Observation in Resident #35's room…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-25 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
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 date and label Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube (plastic tube inserted into the stomach to administer liquid food/supplement) feedings for 1 of 2 (Resident #16) sampled residents reviewed for enteral feeding. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Gastrostomy/Nasogastric Tube Feeding, revealed .Provide nourishment to the resident who is unable to obtain nourishment orally. 2. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Dementia, Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease, Aphasia, Gastrostomy, and Dysphagia. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #16 was assessed as being severely cognitively impaired and receiving nutrition through a feeding tube (peg). Review of a Physician's Order dated 10/21/2023 revealed, .Nutren 1.5 per peg tube at 66 ml (milliliters)/hr (hour) and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-25 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were properly and securely stored when 1 of 3 Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) left unsecured and unattended medication on top of a medication cart. The findings include: 1. Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Medication Cart, revealed .all containers will be labeled and dated .medication will be kept locked . Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Medication Storage Room, revealed .Medication .will be kept locked when not in use . 2. Observation outside Resident #23's room on 10/24/2023 at 7:34 AM, revealed an orange liquid in a clear medication cup on top of Medication Cart #2. 3. During an interview on 10/24/2023 at 7:35 AM, LPN #4 confirmed that she left the oral medication on top of the medication cart outside Resident #23's room. LPN #1 was asked should medication be left open, unsecured, and out of sight of the nurse during medication administration, LPN #4 stated, No. During an interview on 10/25/2023 at 6:25 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) was asked…
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 · D2021-12-14 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to follow Physician's Orders for siderails for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #9) reviewed for physical restraints/siderails. The findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled, .Resident Rights, revealed .The resident has a right .to be free from any physical .restraints . Review of the facility's undated policy titled, .Restraints, revealed .if a restraint is needed it will be the least restrictive possible . Review of the medical record, revealed Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Atherosclerotic Heart Disease, Depression, Diabetes, and Hypertension. Review of the Physician's Orders dated 8/5/2021, revealed .Side Rails ½ [one-half] x [times] 2 to assist with repositioning and safety . Review of the Care Plan dated 9/22/2021, revealed, .SIDE RAILS .½ rails up x 2 to assist with repositioning as per Dr.s [Doctor's] order . Observation in the resident's room on…
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 · D2021-12-14 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 residents were free from significant medication errors when 1 of 3 nurses (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1) failed to administer the ordered dose of Sliding Scale Insulin for 1 of 9 sampled residents (Resident #18) observed during medication administration. The findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled, .ADMINISTRATION OF DRUGS . revealed .Medications must be administered in accordance with the written orders of the attending physician . Review of the facility's undated policy titled, .SLIDING SCALE INSULIN . revealed .PURPOSE: To ensure insulin is administered .Use resident specific sliding scale as ordered by MD [Medical Doctor] . Review of the medical record, revealed Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Diabetes, Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety, Depression, Interstitial Pulmonary Disease, Heart Failure, and Chronic Kidney Disease. 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 · D2021-12-14 · 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 medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure documentation of medications when 2 of 3 nurses (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 and LPN #2) failed to document medications administered on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for 2 of 9 residents (Resident #28 and #29) observed during medication administration. The findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled, .Administration of Drugs, revealed .The nurse administering the medication must record such information on the resident's MAR before administering the next resident's medication .The nurse administering the medications must initial the resident's MAR on the appropriate line and date for that specific day . Review of the medical record, revealed Resident #28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Dementia, Heart Disease, Hypertension, and Acquired Absence of Part of Lung. Review of the Physician's Order dated 7/13/2021, 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in TN
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 44E446. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-10, 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.