No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Nhc Healthcare, Tullahoma

1321 Cedar Lane, Tullahoma, TN 37388 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 90 certified beds · (931) 222-4207 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (931) 222-4207 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Jan 2024
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • 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
  • a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jan 2024

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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 4 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★ 3/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
1330 Cedar Ln · (931) 222-4090 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1600 N Jackson St Ste 340, Ste 340 · (931) 408-6380 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
1600 N Jackson St Ste 340 Ste 340 · (931) 455-6032 · Call to confirm hours
Park
216 Big Springs Ave · (931) 455-1121 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
1200 Cedar Ln

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 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 fell from 5 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.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased15.9%14.0%15.4%typical
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight8.6%6.1%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.4%0.7%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.3%1.8%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms8.2%13.8%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury4.7%3.4%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened21.0%17.2%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication17.9%31.7%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.4%5.0%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control21.4%20.0%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table10.0%16.8%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.3%1.7%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine97.3%79.8%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission24.1%22.6%22.6%typical
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit10.6%11.2%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days1.631.671.67typical
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days1.941.561.80typical

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.

66.7% 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 437 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

66.7%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.8%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
73.9%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.74U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.38hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.30hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.05hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 73.9% 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 188 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 0.74 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 93% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF66.7%CMS range 61.9–71.051.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.8%CMS range 7.7–12.510.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge73.9%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge68.1%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge71.8%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified99.7%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting78.5%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge96.4%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 stay1.7%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.7%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization6.8%CMS range 4.5–8.97.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.991.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.87
RN hours/ resident / day
0.97
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.15
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.00
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.66
RN hoursweekends
52.6%
Total nursing turnover
20.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 90 beds and averages 93.1 residents a day — about 103% occupied, or roughly -3 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 4.00 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.87 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.15 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 3.47 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.21 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.96 to 0.66 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 53% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 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

8
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-06-11)
3
at the previous standard inspection (2024-03-13)

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.

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · E2025-06-11 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — pattern
    Provide 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 facility policy review, medical record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a nebulizer mask was stored appropriately for 1 resident (Resident #219) of 3 residents observed on nebulized medications. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Specific Medication Procedures .Oral Inhalation Administration, revised 2/25/2025, revealed .Turn on the nebulizer and check outflow port for visible mist .Remain with the resident for the treatment .Administer therapy until medication is gone .When treatment is complete, turn off nebulizer and disconnect .When equipment is completely dry, store in a plastic bag with the resident's name and date on it . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #219 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Aftercare Following Joint Replacement Surgery and Emphysema. Review of a physician's order for Resident #219 dated 6/5/2025, revealed .albuterol sulfate [a medication used to relax the muscles in the airway 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-06-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on facility policy review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure dietary workers wore protective hair coverings during food preparation in the kitchen, which had the potential to affect 89 of 90 residents residing in the facility. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Hygienic & Safety Practices, dated 11/2017, revealed .provide a safe product for all customers .wear hair restraints such as hats, hair coverings, or nets, beard restraints .worn effectively to keep their hair from contacting exposed food . During an observation in the food preparation area on 6/9/2025 at 9:22 AM, the Assistant Dietary Manager (ADM) was preparing desserts for the lunch meal service. Further observation revealed the ADM had hair protruding from her protective hair covering which allowed hair from her forehead and the back of the head to remain uncovered. During an observation in the food preparation area on 6/9/2025 at 11:13 AM, the Lead [NAME] was plating resident meals for the lunch meal service and did not have on a protective beard covering to cover his…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-06-11 · tag F0638 — isolated
    Assure that each resident’s assessment is updated at least once every 3 months.
    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 Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, medical record review and interview, the facility failed to complete quarterly assessments, using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services specified RAI process, within the regulatory time frames for 7 residents (Resident #19, #21, #48, #62, #82, #85 and #95) of 28 sampled residents reviewed for MDS assessment. The findings include: Review of the MDS 3.0 RAI Manual v (version) 1.19.1, dated 10/2024, pages 2-35, revealed, .The Quarterly assessment is an OBRA (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) non-comprehensive assessment for a resident that must be completed at least every 92 days following the previous OBRA assessment of any type. It is used to track a resident's status between comprehensive assessments to ensure critical indicators of gradual change in a resident's status are monitored .The MDS completion date must be no later than 14 days after the ARD [Assessment Reference Date] . 1. Review of the medical…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-11 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop 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, observation and interview, the facility failed to revise the care plan for 1 resident (Resident #5) of 18 residents reviewed for care plans. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Documentation Guidelines, updated 5/2024, revealed .The center .ensure an interdisciplinary and comprehensive approach .development of patient's care plan of care .updating .care plans .problems are handled as they arise .added to current care plan . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Heart Failure, Malignant Neoplasm of Pancreas and Anxiety. Review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #5 scored an 11 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Review of the comprehensive care plan for Resident #5 dated 5/15/2025, revealed .Indwelling Catheter . Review of the medical record 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-06-11 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 document review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored and secured properly for 2 residents (Resident #5 and #219) of 90 residents observed. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Medication Storage in the Facility, updated 2/25/2025, revealed .Medications .stored safely .securely .and properly .medication supply .accessible only to licensed nursing personnel .medications .stored in medication cart . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Heart Failure, Malignant Neoplasm of Pancreas and Anxiety. Review of a physician's order for Resident #5 dated 6/2/2025, revealed .Incruse Ellipta [medication used to treat chronic respiratory conditions] .62.5 mcg [microgram] .1 puff once a day . Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #5 dated 6/2/2025-6/10/2025, revealed the resident received .Incruse…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-06-11 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolated
    Dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on facility policy review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure garbage and refuse were properly contained and failed to ensure the outside dumpster area was maintained in a sanitary and orderly condition. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, Waste Management, dated 11/2017, revealed .refuse containers and dumpsters kept outside the facility shall .be in a safe and sanitary manner .checked routinely for .debris .items shall be removed from premises that will minimize the development of odors and other conditions that attract or harbor insects and rodents . During an observation of the outside dumpster area on 6/9/2025 at 9:32 AM, with the Food and Nutrition Director (FND) revealed 2 dumpsters (dumpster A and dumpster B) for waste disposal. Further observation revealed the area behind dumpster A and B had 4 broken wooden pallets, 1 broken chair, 1 broken television, 1 broken table, and 15 disposable gloves on the ground. During an interview on 6/9/2025 at 9:34 AM, the FND stated the 4 broken wooden pallets, 1 broken chair, 1 broken…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-06-11 · tag F0849 — isolated
    Arrange 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 policy review, facility contract review, medical record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a coordinated plan of care with the hospice provider was available in the medical record for 1 resident (Resident #111) of 4 residents reviewed for hospice services. The findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy, HOSPICE SERVICES, revealed .the hospice will guide the plan of care in collaboration with the center . Review of the facility's hospice contract with the hospice entity providing care for Resident #111, dated 10/11/2013, revealed .Plan of Care .means a written care plan established, maintained, reviewed and modified .the Plan of Care includes .an identification of the Hospice Services .detailed statement of the scope and frequency of such Hospice Services .Hospice and Facility will jointly develop and agree upon a coordinated Plan of Care which is consistent with the hospice philosophy and is responsive to the unique needs of Hospice patient .The Plan…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-06-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was donned for 2 residents (Residents #218 and #221) of 6 residents observed on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) and failed to offer hand hygiene assistance prior to meals to 3 residents (Residents #32, #89, and #62) on 1 of 6 hallways observed for meal tray distribution. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy, INFECTION CONTROL MANUAL VOLUME 1, reviewed 2/2025, revealed .Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) refers to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms [MDRO] that employs targeted gown and glove use during high contact activities .used in conjunction with standard precautions and expand the use of PPE to donning of gown and gloves during high-contact patient care activities that provide opportunities for transfer of MDRO to staff hands and clothing .EBP are indicated for…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-03-13 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    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 Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to accurately complete a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 1 resident (#47) of 18 residents reviewed. The findings include: Review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual dated 10/2023 showed .The RAI process has multiple regulatory requirements .the assessment accurately reflects the resident's status .a registered nurse conducts or coordinates each assessment with the appropriate participation of health professionals .one of the most important functions .accurate picture of the resident's current health status . Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Displaced Intertrochanteric Fracture of the Left Femur, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Heart Failure, and a Stage 1 Pressure Ulcer of the Sacral Region. Review of the admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed the residents Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-13 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop 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, observations, and interview, the facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plan to include the added fall prevention interventions after a fall for 2 residents (Resident #5 and #27) of 18 residents reviewed for care plans. The findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Falls Program, showed .to identify patients at risk for falling and to implement the appropriate interventions .initiate a falls care plan .revise the plan of care as needed . Review of the facility policy titled, Patient Care Plans, dated 11/2023, showed .New problems are handled as they arise and are to be added to the current care plan . Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Osteoporosis, Pathological Fracture to the Left Femur, Dementia, and History of Falling. Review of a post fall event report dated 1/28/2024, showed Resident #5 was found on floor in the dayroom, after sliding out of the wheelchair. The immediate…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-13 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure practices to prevent the potential spread of infection were followed when the Wound Care Nurse (WCN) failed to perform proper hand hygiene during wound care for 1 (Resident #6) of 3 residents reviewed for wound care. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Aseptic Treatment Technique Procedure, dated 1/2024, showed .aseptic technique will be used for all types of dressings and wound care .remove old dressing .discard .remove dirty gloves .discard .perform hand hygiene . Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Multiple Sclerosis, Pressure Ulcer (stage 3) of the Sacral Region, and Muscle Wasting. Review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed Resident #6 scored 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact, required partial/moderate assistance…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-01-31 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
    Protect 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, facility investigation documentation review, and interview, the facility failed to protect 1 resident (Resident #1) from abuse of 5 residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Patient Protection and Response Policy for Allegations/Incidents of Abuse, Neglect, Misappropriation of Property and Exploitation, revised on 2/1/2023, showed .The patient has the right to be free from abuse .The center administrator is responsible for assuring that patient safety, including free from risk of abuse or neglect, holds the highest priority .DEFINITIONS .Abuse: the will infliction of injury .Willful, as used in this definition of abuse, means the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm .Physical Abuse: includes hitting, slapping, pinching and kicking .PREVENTION POLICY .The center will provide supervision and support services designed to reduce 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-01-31 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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 interview, the facility failed to follow a physician's order for 1 resident (Resident #3) of 5 residents sampled. The findings include: Review of the facility's undated policy titled, PATIENT RIGHTS, showed .Medications and treatments are ordered by and given under the supervision of your attending physician . Review of Resident #3's Post Hospitalization Transition Discharge Instructions dated 2/22/2023, showed .SKIN AND/OR WOUND CARE .Surgical Incision .Midline sternal incision- cleanse daily with soap and water. Keep clean and dry. REMOVE STAPLES on March 8, 2023 . Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including .Encounter for orthopedic aftercare following surgical amputation .L [Left] BKA [Below Knee Amputation] .Encounter for Surgical Aftercare Following Surgery on the Circulatory System .(MV [Mitral Valve] replacement and CABG [Coronary Artery Bypass Graft x1) . Review of the medical record showed an order dated…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 54.0-1.0 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 53.5-0.5 vs chain
Staffing 4 of 53.5+0.5 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 54.4-0.4 vs chain
The other 68 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, per CMS)
1 of 5NHC Healthcare - MauldinGreenville, SC 2 of 5NHC Healthcare - CharlestonCharleston, SC 2 of 5NHC Healthcare, GlasgowGlasgow, KY 2 of 5Nhc Healthcare RossvilleRossville, GA 2 of 5Nhc Healthcare, AnnistonAnniston, AL 2 of 5Nhc Healthcare, FranklinFranklin, TN 2 of 5Nhc Healthcare, JoplinJoplin, MO 2 of 5Nhc Healthcare, SpringfieldSpringfield, TN 2 of 5Osage Beach Rehabilitation And Health Care CenterOsage Beach, MO 2 of 5White Oak Manor-ShelbyShelby, NC 3 of 5Adamsplace, LLCMurfreesboro, TN 3 of 5NHC Healthcare - GreenwoodGreenwood, SC 3 of 5Nhc Healthcare, Ft SandersKnoxville, TN 3 of 5Nhc Healthcare, HendersonvilleHendersonville, TN 3 of 5Nhc Healthcare, KnoxvilleKnoxville, TN 3 of 5Nhc Healthcare, LewisburgLewisburg, TN 3 of 5Nhc Healthcare, PulaskiPulaski, TN 3 of 5Nhc Healthcare, SmithvilleSmithville, TN 3 of 5Nhc Healthcare, SpartaSparta, TN 3 of 5The Health Center At Richland PlaceNashville, TN 3 of 5The MeadowsNashville, TN 3 of 5White Oak Manor - YorkYork, SC 4 of 5NHC HealthCare - North AugustaNorth Augusta, SC 4 of 5NHC Healthcare - BlufftonOkatie, SC 4 of 5NHC Healthcare - Garden CityGarden City, SC 4 of 5NHC Healthcare - LexingtonWest Columbia, SC 4 of 5Nhc Healthcare, ChattanoogaChattanooga, TN 4 of 5Nhc Healthcare, ColumbiaColumbia, TN 4 of 5Nhc Healthcare, DeslogeDesloge, MO 4 of 5Nhc Healthcare, Maryland HeightsMaryland Heights, MO 4 of 5Nhc Healthcare, MilanMilan, TN 4 of 5Nhc Healthcare, Oak RidgeOak Ridge, TN 4 of 5Nhc Healthcare, OakwoodLewisburg, TN 4 of 5Nhc Healthcare, St CharlesSaint Charles, MO 4 of 5Nhc Place At Cool SpringsFranklin, TN 4 of 5White Oak Manor - CharlestonCharleston, SC 4 of 5White Oak Manor - SpartanburgSpartanburg, SC 5 of 5HeartlandNashville, TN 5 of 5Holston Health & Rehabilitation CenterKnoxville, TN 5 of 5Macon Health Care CenterMacon, MO

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

Investor-owned

CMS ownership filings flag an owner of this facility as an investment firm. That’s a fact worth knowing about who ultimately profits from the home. Read the inspection and staffing record above on its own merits.

  • MORGAN STANLEY — investment firm · 5.40% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest
  • VANGUARD GROUP INC — investment firm · 9.09% share · 5% Or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest

Source: CMS SNF ownership filings (PECOS). These flags are self-reported and undercount — federal auditors (GAO) and researchers find CMS captures only a fraction of true private-equity and REIT ties, so the absence of a flag on other homes is not proof they lack investor owners. How investor ownership affects care →

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
MORGAN STANLEY INSTITUTIONAL ADVISORS LLCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 11/08/2024
NHC/DELAWARE INCOrganizationINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 05/15/2013
BIDWELL, GREGORYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 07/01/2000
NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORPORATIONOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/15/2013
NHC-OP LPOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/13/2013
BILLS, STEPHENIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/10/2014
BURISH, STEPHENIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/30/2025
DODSON, VICKIIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 06/01/2019
KIDD, BRIANIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2017
MASSIE, WINONAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 05/20/2024
USSERY, ROBERTIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 05/15/2013
BLACKROCK INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 03/20/2019
DIMENSIONAL FUND ADVISORS LPOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 03/07/2023
MORGAN STANLEYOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 11/08/2024
NATIONAL HEALTH CORPORATIONOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 05/15/2013
VANGUARD GROUP INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 03/27/2017

CMS files one row per role, so the 24 rows in the source record cover these 16 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.

9 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.

$12.4M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+6.6%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$948K
Related-party expense8% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 35%Medicare 27%Other / private 37%

This home reported $948K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent 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

$366per resident / day
operating cost
$11,139per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$392per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Tennessee
$9,429/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$10,038/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,845/mo
Assisted living

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 445515. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-11, 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.

What to do next