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

Life Care Center Of Morgan County

419 South Kingston Street, Wartburg, TN 37887 · For profit - Corporation · 124 certified beds · (423) 346-6691 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (423) 346-6691 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Nov 20222 actual-harm citations$8,512 in federal fines
Insights

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

In its favor
  • lower-than-typical staff turnover (32% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2022
  • it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • it has 2 actual-harm citations
  • the CMS record shows $8,512 in federal fines (most recent 2024-09-17)
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
  • about 19% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
  • its last standard health inspection was over 3 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

2/5
CMS overall
2 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
1236 Knoxville Hwy · (423) 346-5566 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
926 Main St · (423) 346-3505 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
520 Main St · (423) 346-7164 · Call to confirm hours
Park
208 N Maiden Ln · (423) 346-6294 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 3 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 3 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 3 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 2 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 rating2★
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 increased2.0%14.0%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight15.5%6.1%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder1.5%0.7%0.9%worse
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection3.0%1.8%2.0%worse
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms7.6%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 injury5.5%3.4%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened4.3%17.2%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication39.1%31.7%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.5%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers8.4%5.0%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control19.0%20.0%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table25.3%16.8%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.9%1.7%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine95.3%79.8%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission28.5%22.6%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit9.6%11.2%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.071.671.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.541.561.80better

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.

48.0% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 86 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

48.0%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
13.5%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
63.4%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.35U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.16hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.12hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.06hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 63.4% 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 41 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.35 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 59% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF48.0%CMS range 37.9–57.151.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF13.5%CMS range 8.6–17.610.7%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 discharge63.4%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 discharge53.7%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 discharge51.2%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 identified100.0%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 settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay1.8%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 worsened1.8%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 hospitalization10.0%CMS range 6.2–15.67.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.001.02Oct 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

0.66
RN hours/ resident / day
1.20
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.63
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.49
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.33
RN hoursweekends
31.5%
Total nursing turnover
25.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 124 beds and averages 67.0 residents a day — about 54% occupied, or roughly 57 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 3.49 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.66 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.63 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.84 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.75 on weekdays — 24% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.79 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 32% is below the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

9
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2022-11-16)
1
at the previous standard inspection (2019-09-05)

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 3 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

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.

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

  • Actual harm · G2024-09-17 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, hospital record review, and interview the facility failed to implement care plan interventions related to safe transfers with a mechanical lift for 1 resident (Resident #5) of 10 resident care plans reviewed which resulted in actual Harm for Resident #5. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans and Revisions, dated 9/11/2024, revealed .The facility will ensure .each resident's person-centered [care plan] .is reviewed and revised .that includes but not limited to .appropriate staff .by resident's needs . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Cirrhosis of the Liver, Bipolar Disorder, and Morbid Obesity. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #5 scored a 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment which indicated the resident was…

    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
  • Actual harm · Gcited before2024-09-17 · 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, lift sling manufacture's guidelines review, medical record review, hospital record review, and interview the facility failed to prevent a fall from a mechanical lift for 1 resident (Resident #5) of 3 residents reviewed for falls which resulted in actual Harm for Resident #5. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Fall Management, dated 9/22/202, revealed .Each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents .implement interventions, including adequate supervision .in order to eliminate the risk, if possible, and, if not, reduce the risk of an accident .Adequate supervision is determined by assessing the appropriate level and number of staff required . Review of the manufactures guidelines titled, full body patient sling, dated 2016, revealed .weight capacity 600 pounds .recommends that two (2) assistants be used when positioning the patient sling . Review of the medical record revealed Resident #5 was admitted to 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2022-11-16 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    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 observations and interviews the facility failed to maintain cleaniness and sanitary conditions for 2 of 2 microwaves available for patient use in 2 of 2 Nourishment Rooms potentially affecting 76 of 80 residents. The findings include: During an observation and interview on 11/16/2022 at 1:12 PM, of the B Wing Nourishment Room with the Registered Dietician (RD) and the Executive Director (ED) showed splattered and crusty dried debris with a white film covering the whole inside of the microwave. The RD and the ED stated nursing staff were responsible for cleaning the microwaves and the microwave were to be cleaned after each use. The ED confirmed the microwave was dirty and available for patient use. During an observation and interview on 11/16/2022 at 1:30 PM, of the Secure Unit Nourishment Room with the RD and the ED showed splattered and crusty dried debris covering the whole inside of the microwave. The RD and the ED stated nursing staff were responsible for cleaning the microwaves and the microwave were to be cleaned after each use. The ED confirmed the microwave was…

    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 · D2022-11-16 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolated
    Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
    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, record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to provide privacy of personal care information for 1 resident (Resident #28) of 80 residents reviewed. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Dignity, dated 9/30/2022, showed .Each resident has the right to be treated with dignity and respect .Facility must treat each resident with respect and dignity .recognizing each resident's individuality .promote the rights of the resident .Staff should not .document .records where others can see a resident's information . Resident #28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, Contracture of Left Knee and Atherosclerosis of Native Arteries of Left L with Ulceration of Lower Leg. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed Resident #28 had a Brief Mental Status Score (BIMS) of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact, and required extensive assistance of 2 staff members with bed mobility…

    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 Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-11-16 · 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, and interview, the facility failed to protect 1 resident (Resident #16) from verbal abuse of 24 residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Protection of Residents: Reducing the Threat of Abuse & Neglect, revised 8/2021, showed .Each resident has the right to be free from abuse .It is the policy and practice of this facility that all residents will be protected from all types of abuse .It is the policy of the facility to maintain an environment where residents are free from abuse .Residents must not be subjected to abuse by anyone .includes but is not limited to: staff, other residents . Resident #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia, Mild Intellectual Disabilities, Cognition Communication Deficit, and Chronic Kidney Disease. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed Resident #16 had a Brief Interview for Mental…

    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 · D2022-11-16 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely 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 facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to report allegations of abuse for two residents (Resident #73 and Resident #16) of 24 residents reviewed. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Protection of Residents: Reducing the Threat of Abuse & Neglect, revised 8/2021, showed .Ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment .are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency . Resident #73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE] with Diagnoses including Major Depressive Disorder, Cerebrovascular Disease, Hyperlipidemia, and Adult Failure…

    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 · D2022-11-16 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
    Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to investigate allegations of abuse for 2 residents (Resident #73 and Resident #16) of 24 residents reviewed. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Protection of Residents: Reducing the Threat of Abuse & Neglect, revised 8/2021, showed .In response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, the facility must .Have evidence that all alleged violations are thoroughly investigated . Resident #73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE] with Diagnoses including Major Depressive Disorder, Cerebrovascular Disease, Hyperlipidemia, and Adult Failure to Thrive. Review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], showed Resident #73 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating the resident was cognitively intact. During an interview on 11/14/2022 at 10:32 AM, Resident #73 stated he has had some problems with staff.Two nights ago my…

    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 · D2022-11-16 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
    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, record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to provide restorative therapy services for 1 resident (Resident #42) of 12 residents reviewed for limited range of motion (ROM). The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, Restorative Nursing, dated 9/19/2022, showed .To promote the resident's optimum function .Restorative programs may be initiated by .therapy .resident is given the appropriate treatment and services to .improve his or her ability to carry out the activities of daily living [ADLs] .Restorative Nursing does not require a physician order . Resident #42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Hemiplegia (paralysis on 1 side of the body) and Hemiparesis (muscle weakness on 1 side of the body) and Left Above the Knee Amputation (AKA). Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], showed Resident #42 required extensive assistance of 2 staff for bed mobility and transfers and extensive…

    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 · Dcited before2022-11-16 · 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, record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to implement an intervention after a fall for 1 resident (Resident #9) of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Fall Management, undated showed .promote patient safety .reduce .falls by .care planning and monitoring .fall indicators .with any fall event .fall risks .will identify appropriate interventions to minimize the risk of injury related to falls . Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Right Femur Fracture, Contusion of Eyeball, Osteopenia, Atrial Fibrillation, Congestive Heart Failure, Osteoarthritis, Repeated Falls, and Open-Angle Glaucoma. Review of the of the comprehensive care plan initiated 5/26/2022 and revised 10/28/2022, showed Resident #9 was at risk for falls related to weakness and impaired mobility. Interventions included assistance with activities of daily living and soft touch call…

    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 · D2022-11-16 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to verify a medical justification or diagnosis for the use of an indwelling urinary catheter for 1 resident (Resident #79) of 6 residents reviewed for indwelling urinary catheter. The findings include: Review of the facility policy titled, Indwelling Urinary Catheter (Foley) [type of catheter] Management, reviewed 8/22/2022, showed .The facility will ensure that residents admitted with a urinary catheter, or determined to need a urinary catheter for a medical indication will have the following areas addressed .Timely and appropriate assessments related to the indication for use of an indwelling catheter .Identification and documentation of clinical indications for the use of a catheter; as well as criteria for the discontinuance of the catheter when the indication for use is no longer present .A resident who enters the facility with an indwelling catheter or subsequently receives one is assessed for removal of…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2022-11-16 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
    Safeguard 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 facility policy review, medical record review, observation, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record for 2 residents (Resident #23 and Resident #68) of 24 medical records reviewed. The findings include: Review of a facility policy titled, Advance Directives and Advance Care Planning, reviewed [DATE], .it is the policy of this facility to support and facilitate a resident's right to request, refuse and/or discontinue medical treatment .and to formulate an advanced directive .the resident's choices will be documented in the resident's medical record . Resident #23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, Delusional Disorders, Major Depressive Disorder, and Dementia. Review of an Order Summary Report for Resident #23 showed, .Full code . with a start date of [DATE] and no end date indicated. Review of Resident #23's comprehensive care plan revised [DATE], showed .Full Code . Review of a Tennessee Physician Orders for Scope of…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2019-09-05 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolated
    Ensure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on review of facility policy, review of facility protocol, medical record review, observation and interview the facility failed to maintain a medication error rate less than 5 percent as evidenced by 2 medication errors out of 32 medication administration observations resulting in a medication error rate of 6.25 percent. The findings include: Review of the facility policy, Administration of Medications, dated 4/24/19 revealed .All medications are administered safely and appropriately per physician order . Review of a facility protocol revealed, .Common Oral Dosage Forms That Should Not Be Crushed .DR .delayed-release .ER .extended-release .Pantoprazole sodium .Delayed release . Medical record review revealed Resident #63 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Encephalopathy, Diabetes, Anemia, Dysphagia, and Chronic Kidney Disease. Medical record review of a Physicians Recapitulation Order dated 6/7/19 revealed Pantoprazole Sodium (medication to treat high levels of stomach acid) 20…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2018-09-19 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on facility policy, observation, and interview, the facility failed to remove expired food supplies readily available for resident use, potentially affecting 70 of 72 residents. The findings include: Review of facility policy Food Safety last revised 11/28/17 revealed .Food is stored and maintained in a clean, safe and sanitary manner . Observation and interview with the Dietary Manager on 9/17/18 at 9:50 AM, at the reach in cooler located in the kitchen, revealed 6 strawberry banana yogurts available for resident use dated 8/23/18. Continued interview confirmed the facility failed to discard the expired yogurts.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2018-09-19 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolated
    Provide or obtain dental services for each resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to ensure routine dental services were provided for 1 resident (#15) of 4 residents reviewed for dental services of 31 sampled residents. The findings include: Review of the facility policy revised 7/2017 revealed .facility is responsible for assisting the patient in obtaining needed dental services, including routine dental services .arrangements will be made promptly for routine .dental services . Medical record review revealed Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Huntington's Disease, Muscle Spasms, Encephalopathy, Anxiety, and Depression. Medical record review revealed the Consent for Dental Treatment, signed by the family, dated 4/10/17. Observation and interview of Resident #15 on 9/17/18 at 10:20 AM, in the resident's room, revealed the resident complained of tooth pain and pointed to the upper teeth. Continued interview revealed the resident had not been seen by…

    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

$8,512 in federal fines across 2 penalties.

  • $4,256 — penalty dated 2024-09-17
  • $4,256 — penalty dated 2024-09-17

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA — 194 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 2 of 53.4-1.4 vs chain
Health inspection 2 of 52.8-0.8 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 53.3-0.3 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 54.5-1.5 vs chain
The other 193 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, per CMS)
1 of 5Garden Terrace At Overland ParkOverland Park, KS 1 of 5Hammond-Whiting Care CenterWhiting, IN 1 of 5Life Care Center Of AndoverAndover, KS 1 of 5Life Care Center Of Cape GirardeauCape Girardeau, MO 1 of 5Life Care Center Of GrayGray, TN 1 of 5Life Care Center Of HixsonHixson, TN 1 of 5Life Care Center Of Mount VernonMount Vernon, WA 1 of 5Life Care Center Of RenoReno, NV 1 of 5Life Care Center Of Sierra VistaSierra Vista, AZ 1 of 5Life Care Center Of The WillowsValparaiso, IN 1 of 5Life Care Center Of TucsonTucson, AZ 1 of 5Life Care Center of Coeur d'AleneCoeur d'Alene, ID 1 of 5Life Care Center of ElkhornElkhorn, NE 1 of 5Life Care Center of Hilton HeadHilton Head Island, SC 1 of 5Life Care Center of OmahaOmaha, NE 1 of 5Life Care Center of PlainwellPlainwell, MI 1 of 5Life Care Ctr Of LawrencevilleLawrenceville, GA 1 of 5Rensselaer Care CenterRensselaer, IN 2 of 5Canon Lodge Care CenterCanon City, CO 2 of 5Darcy Hall Of Life CareWest Palm Beach, FL 2 of 5Desert Cove Nursing CenterChandler, AZ 2 of 5Evergreen Nursing HomeAlamosa, CO 2 of 5Garden Terrace Healthcare Center of HoustonHouston, TX 2 of 5Hallmark ManorFederal Way, WA 2 of 5Lane House, TheCrawfordsville, IN 2 of 5Life Care Center Of Altamonte SpringsAltamonte Springs, FL 2 of 5Life Care Center Of AthensAthens, TN 2 of 5Life Care Center Of BridgetonBridgeton, MO 2 of 5Life Care Center Of BrookfieldBrookfield, MO 2 of 5Life Care Center Of ClevelandCleveland, TN 2 of 5Life Care Center Of ColumbiaColumbia, SC 2 of 5Life Care Center Of Coos BayCoos Bay, OR 2 of 5Life Care Center Of Federal WayFederal Way, WA 2 of 5Life Care Center Of GrandviewGrandview, MO 2 of 5Life Care Center Of KirklandKirkland, WA 2 of 5Life Care Center Of Merrimack ValleyBillerica, MA 2 of 5Life Care Center Of PuyallupPuyallup, WA 2 of 5Life Care Center Of Red BankChattanooga, TN 2 of 5Life Care Center Of South Las VegasLas Vegas, NV 2 of 5Life Care Center Of TullahomaTullahoma, TN

Showing 40 of 193; lowest-rated first.

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
PRESTON, FORRESTIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/01/1979
SOLOMON, JENNIFERIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 05/01/2019
TYNDALL, DONALDIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/20/2025
WIDBY, TRACYIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 04/19/2016
CROSS, CINDYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 04/21/1994
HENRY, TERRYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 08/16/1999
LAY, LISAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 02/09/2018
SWANKER, RICHARDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 04/01/2011
THURMOND, JOANIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 09/22/2000
DEVELOPERS INVESTMENT COMPANY INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTERESTsince 12/28/1994
LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC.OrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/20/2025
WARTBURG MEDICAL INVESTORS LPOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/01/1980
FLETCHER, TODDIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 12/13/2024
PRESTON, AUBREYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 12/13/2024
WILLETT, DWIGHTIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 03/20/2025
ZIEGLER, JAMESIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 12/13/2024

CMS files one row per role, so the 26 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.

3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$8.3M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+7.2%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.5M
Related-party expense19% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 67%Medicare 7%Other / private 26%

This home reported $1.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 19% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

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

$271per resident / day
operating cost
$8,228per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$292per 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 445239. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2022-11-16, 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