LIFE CARE CENTER OF RED BANK
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Life Care Center of Red Bank has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance and significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #134 out of 298 facilities in Tennessee places them in the top half, while their county rank of #8 out of 11 suggests that there are only a few local options that are better. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 3 in 2023 to 13 in 2024. Staffing is rated below average with a 2/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 49%, indicating staff continuity may be a challenge. Notably, there were serious incidents, including a failure to properly implement a resident's care plan, which led to actual harm, and a lack of adequate fall prevention measures for residents, raising concerns about oversight and safety.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Tennessee
- #134/298
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 49% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $8,512 in fines. Lower than most Tennessee facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 30 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Tennessee. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 27 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Tennessee average (2.8)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Tennessee avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 27 deficiencies on record
Jul 2024
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**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 medical inform...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to notify resident representatives of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, review of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual 3.0, medical record review, and inter...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Review of the medical record revealed Resident #39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Anxiety Disor...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**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 change a tube feeding ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**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 store the nebulizer an...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 garbage and refuse storage area was kept in a sanitary condition.
The findings include:
Review of the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview the facility failed to ensure food items were stored properly in the kitchen and in 2 of 2 nourishment rooms and failed to ensure dishes and...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observations, and interviews the facility failed to implement Enhanced B...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
4 deficiencies
3 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, facility procedure review, medical record review, facility investigation review, and interviews...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, facility procedure review, medical record review, review of facility investigation documentatio...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Administration
(Tag F0835)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, review of facility documentation, and interview, the facility's Administration failed to provid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical reco...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to notify the Physician or Nurse Prac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, facility investigation review, and interview, the facility failed to rep...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to accurately reconcile the admission...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2021
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**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 medications we...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, facility investigation review, and interview, the facility failed to pro...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, facility investigation review, and interview, the facility failed to rep...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, facility investigation review, and interview, the facility failed to tho...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**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 medications we...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Gradual Dose Reduction (G...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on facility policy, observation, and interview, the facility failed to date and label foods available for resident use and failed to discard molded food available for resident use in 1 of 1 kitc...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2019
4 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to follow professional st...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**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 provide effective pain...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to make a referral to the state-designated authority for a Lev...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision for 1 r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 5 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 27 deficiencies on record, including 5 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade F (33/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Life Of Red Bank's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns LIFE CARE CENTER OF RED BANK an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Tennessee, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Life Of Red Bank Staffed?
CMS rates LIFE CARE CENTER OF RED BANK's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 49%, compared to the Tennessee average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Life Of Red Bank?
State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at LIFE CARE CENTER OF RED BANK during 2019 to 2024. These included: 5 that caused actual resident harm and 22 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Life Of Red Bank?
LIFE CARE CENTER OF RED BANK is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 148 certified beds and approximately 83 residents (about 56% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in CHATTANOOGA, Tennessee.
How Does Life Of Red Bank Compare to Other Tennessee Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Tennessee, LIFE CARE CENTER OF RED BANK's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (49%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Life Of Red Bank?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.
Is Life Of Red Bank Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, LIFE CARE CENTER OF RED BANK has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Tennessee. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Life Of Red Bank Stick Around?
LIFE CARE CENTER OF RED BANK has a staff turnover rate of 49%, which is about average for Tennessee nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Life Of Red Bank Ever Fined?
LIFE CARE CENTER OF RED BANK has been fined $8,512 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Tennessee average of $33,164. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Life Of Red Bank on Any Federal Watch List?
LIFE CARE CENTER OF RED BANK is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.