MAGNOLIA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
Magnolia Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about care quality. With a state rank of #265 out of 298 facilities in Tennessee, they are in the bottom half, and they rank #6 out of 6 in Maury County, meaning there are no better local options available. The situation is worsening, with issues increasing from 5 in 2019 to 8 in 2022. Staffing is a major concern, with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 75%, much higher than the state average of 48%. Additionally, the facility has reported $5,283 in fines, which is average but still raises concerns about compliance. On the positive side, the facility has some average quality measures, scoring 3 out of 5 stars, and their RN coverage is below average, being less than 91% of state facilities. However, specific incidents noted by inspectors include staff failing to perform necessary COVID-19 screenings and hand hygiene for several residents, which could lead to infection risks. There were also issues with food sanitation and improper medication storage, which indicates ongoing problems with basic care standards. Overall, families should carefully weigh these significant weaknesses against any strengths when considering this facility for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Tennessee
- #265/298
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 75% turnover. Very high, 27 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $5,283 in fines. Higher than 77% of Tennessee facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 19 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Tennessee. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 23 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Licensed Facility · Meets state certification requirements
-
No fines on record
This facility meets basic licensing requirements.
The Bad
Below Tennessee average (2.8)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
29pts above Tennessee avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
27 points above Tennessee average of 48%
The Ugly 23 deficiencies on record
Jun 2022
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
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 develop a Baseline Care Plan within 48 hours of admission t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were admini...
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 policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Care Plan interventions...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0553
(Tag F0553)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, review of the interdisciplinary Care Plan meeting sign in sheets, medical record review, and interview, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide information regarding a resident's ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to accurately assess the nutritional status an...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 6 of 16 sampled residents (Resident ...
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 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, policy review, review of Employee Screening logs, empl...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2019
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the patient representative was invol...
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 the chemical safety chart, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the environment was free of acciden...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored properly and safely in 1 of 6 (South Long Hall Medication Cart 1) medication storage areas.
Th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure measures to prevent the potential spre...
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 policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served under sanitary conditions as evidenced by the absence of hand washing supplies, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2018
10 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
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to promote and maintain dignity for residents with an indwelling foley catheter when there was not a dignity bag for 2 of 4 (Resident #62 and 21...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
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 complete a comprehensive assessment, using the CMA (Centers...
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 medical record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure assessments were completed to accurately reflect the...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, medical record review and interview the facility failed to ensure there was ongoing communication betwee...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0638
(Tag F0638)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to assess 13 of 48 (Resident #2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 1...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive care plan for 4 of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 6 (Licensed Practi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on Blood Glucose Monitoring User Manual, policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure practices were maintained to prevent the potential spread of infection when 4 of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on policy review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored properly and safely in 3 of 5 (south east hall, south short hall, and south long hall) medicati...
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 policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared and served under sanitary conditions as evidenced by the kitchen floor and mats were dirty, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • 23 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • Grade F (28/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 75% turnover. Very high, 27 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
About This Facility
What is Magnolia Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MAGNOLIA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Tennessee, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Magnolia Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Staffed?
CMS rates MAGNOLIA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 75%, which is 29 percentage points above the Tennessee average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Magnolia Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center?
State health inspectors documented 23 deficiencies at MAGNOLIA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2018 to 2022. These included: 23 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Magnolia Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center?
MAGNOLIA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 181 certified beds and approximately 90 residents (about 50% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in COLUMBIA, Tennessee.
How Does Magnolia Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other Tennessee Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Tennessee, MAGNOLIA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (75%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Magnolia Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Magnolia Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MAGNOLIA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER 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 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Magnolia Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?
Staff turnover at MAGNOLIA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER is high. At 75%, the facility is 29 percentage points above the Tennessee average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Magnolia Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?
MAGNOLIA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER has been fined $5,283 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Tennessee average of $33,132. 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 Magnolia Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?
MAGNOLIA HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER 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.