NHC PLACE AT COOL SPRINGS

211 COOL SPRINGS BLVD, FRANKLIN, TN 37067 (615) 778-6800
For profit - Corporation 121 Beds NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORPORATION Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
65/100
#86 of 298 in TN
Last Inspection: September 2022

Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.

Overview

NHC Place at Cool Springs has a Trust Grade of C+, which indicates that it is slightly above average but still has room for improvement. It ranks #86 out of 298 facilities in Tennessee, placing it in the top half, and #3 out of 5 in Williamson County, meaning only one local facility performs better. The facility is showing an improving trend, having reduced its issues from five in 2019 to just one in 2022. Staffing is rated 4 out of 5 stars, but it has a concerning turnover rate of 60%, which is higher than the state average of 48%. While the good news is that there have been no fines reported, which is a positive sign, there have been some serious incidents noted. For example, there were failures to notify a physician about a resident's deteriorating pressure ulcer, which resulted in actual harm. Additionally, there were concerns about food safety practices, such as improper food handling and sanitation in the kitchen. Overall, while the facility has strengths like good RN coverage and no fines, families should be aware of the staffing turnover and specific incidents that indicate areas needing attention.

Trust Score
C+
65/100
In Tennessee
#86/298
Top 28%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
5 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Tennessee facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 71 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Tennessee nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
○ Average
8 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2019: 5 issues
2022: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 60%

14pts above Tennessee avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Chain: NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORPORATION

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (60%)

12 points above Tennessee average of 48%

The Ugly 8 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Sept 2022 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0886 (Tag F0886)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on policy review, SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) testing log, Staff Time and Attendance sheets, and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a system to track and ensure all staff with med...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on policy review, SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) testing log, Staff Time and Attendance sheets, and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a system to track and ensure all staff with medical and religious exemptions for COVID-19 testing were tested twice weekly for the prevention and potential spread of COVID-19 when 3 of 8 staff members (Registered Nurse (RN) #1 and #2, and Nurse Aide (NA) #1) failed to perform COVID-19 testing twice weekly for 3 of 4 weeks (8/15/2022 - 8/21/2022, 8/29/2022 - 9/4/2022, and 9/5/2022 - 9/11/2022) reviewed. This had the potential to effect the residents these employees cared for. The findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled, .Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccine, dated 2/2/2022, revealed .staff who do not receive the COVID-19 vaccination are considered to be at-risk for transmitting COVID-19 to other staff and patients .exemptions .Testing 2x [times]/week prior to shift regardless . Review of the facility's SARS-CoV-2 Testing Logs and Staff Time and Attendance sheets from 8/15/2022 -9/11/2022 revealed the following employees failed to perform the required twice weekly COVID-19 testing: a. 8/15/2022-8/21/2022 - RN #2 b. 8/29/2022- 9/4/2022 - RN #1 and RN #2 c. 9/5/2022 - 9/11/2022 - RN #1 and NA #1 During an interview on 9/14/2022 at 5:30 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was in the room assisting and confirming exempted staff COVID-19 testing, and the DON was asked if she expected her staff to complete the twice weekly testing as required. The DON stated, Yes .
Aug 2019 5 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

A resident was harmed · 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 notify the physician of a pressure ulcer on a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to notify the physician of a pressure ulcer on admission and failed to notify the physician when a Stage 2 pressure ulcer on the coccyx deteriorated to an unstageable pressure ulcer for 1 of 6 (Resident #138) sampled residents reviewed with pressure ulcers which resulted in actual Harm. The findings include: 1. Medical record review revealed Resident #138 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Hypertension, Dementia, Hypothyroidism, and Absence of a Kidney. A Hospital Wound Care note dated 7/9/19 documented, .stage 2 pressure injury to sacrum [a shield-shaped bony structure that is located at the base of the lumbar vertebrae and that is connected to the pelvis] . Review of the admission Observation performed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 dated 7/11/19 revealed a pressure ulcer on the coccyx (tailbone, a bony structure located at the bottom of the vertebral column) that was described as having zero length and depth. There was no documentation the physician was notified of the pressure ulcer on the coccyx. Review of the Weekly Skin Observations dated 7/17/19, 7/17/19, and 7/31/19 performed by LPN #1 revealed the presence of an open area to the coccyx and a nursing skin treatment/intervention of the application of a dressing (with or without topical medications) . There was no documentation the physician was notified of the open area on the coccyx and no documentation a treatment was ordered by the physician for the open area on the coccyx. Review of a General Order dated 7/18/19 and signed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 documented, .Apply cavilon protective stick (a fast-drying, non-sticky, alcohol free liquid barrier film) to coccyx area every 3 days .Nursing Order . There was no documentation the physician was notified. Review of the Wound Management Observation History dated 8/1/19 performed by LPN #2 documented, .Length .(centimeters) 4.5 .Width (centimeters) .3 .Tissue Type .Slough [the result of protein, fiber strands,and dead skin cells which can slow wound healing] .Wound edges .Irregular .Skin surrounding wound .Erythema (redness) . Review of the General Order dated 8/1/19 and signed by LPN #1 documented, .Clean with NS [Normal Saline]. Apply Medihoney [gel indicated for dry to moderately exuding wounds such as partial and full thickness pressure ulcers] to wound bed. Apply No Sting Barrier Spray to periwound [around wound] and cover with protective dressing daily until resolved .Nursing Order . There was no documentation the physician was notified that the pressure ulcer had deteriorated and the nursing order for the treatment was not signed by the physician. Review of the Wound Management Observation History dated 8/8/19 performed by LPN #2 documented, Length .(centimeters) .4.5 .Width .(centimeters) .3.3 .Exudate [drainage] .Moderate .Serous (clear, amber, thin and watery) .Tissue Type .Granulation [new connective tissue and microscopic blood vessels that form on the surfaces of a wound during the healing process] . There was no documentation the physician was notified of the pressure ulcer or that it had deteriorated. Review of the Wound Management Observation History dated 8/15/19 performed by LPN #2 documented, .Length .(centimeters) .4.9 .Width .(centimeters) .4.8 .Depth .(centimeters) .0.1 .Exudate .Moderate . Serous .Tissue Type .Slough . There was no documentation the physician was notified the pressure ulcer had deteriorated further. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/22/19 at 8:20 AM in the Private Dining Room, the DON was asked if a physician ordered the Medihoney treatment for the coccyx wound. The DON confirmed it was not ordered by a physician and stated, They should have been notified. I believe she put it in as a general nursing order. Observations in Resident #138's room on 8/21/19 at 10:40 AM, revealed Resident #138 was positioned on an air mattress (a mattress that reduces pressure on the bony prominences of the body). LPN #1 removed the dressing from the coccyx pressure ulcer. The dressing contained serosangious (blood and serous drainage) drainage. The wound measurements were 5.5 centimeters in length and 5.5 centimeters in width. The wound bed was covered with 40% black eschar (dead tissue that is leathery or thick, black, tan or brown) and 60% slough (dried inflammatory fluid that is moist, stringy, yellow, tan, green, or brown). The surrounding tissue was bright red with areas of maceration (skin appears lighter in color and wrinkly). The depth could not be determined due to the slough and eschar in the wound bed. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 on 8/21/19 at 5:51 PM in the Private Dining Room, LPN #3 was asked when he first saw Resident #138's coccyx pressure ulcer. LPN #3 stated, August 1 [2019] .it was unstageable [full thickness skin or tissue loss with unknown depth of the wound] due to slough . LPN #3 was asked if the pressure ulcer had improved. The LPN #3 stated, No. I don't see that. LPN #3 was asked if a physician had been notified of the pressure ulcer on the coccyx. The Unit Manager stated, I don't know. LPN #3 was asked if he should have notified the physician. LPN #3 stated, Yes, Ma'am. Interview with the DON on 8/22/19 at 8:05 AM in the Private Dining Room, the DON was asked if a physician was notified about the pressure ulcer on Resident #138's coccyx. The DON stated, I don't see documentation that reflects that . The DON was asked if she notified the physician after she observed the pressure ulcer on 8/21/19. The DON stated, .did not . Telephone interview with Physician #1 (Resident #138's physician) on 8/22/19 at 9:58 AM, Physician #1 was asked if he should have been notified that Resident #138 had a pressure ulcer on the coccyx. Physician #1 stated, I suspect so .you want a full team approach .with a worsening wound the nurse should raise the flag . Telephone interview with the Nurse Practitioner on 8/22/19 at 11:27 AM, the Nurse Practitioner was asked if she had seen Resident #138's pressure ulcer. She stated, I have not . The Nurse Practitioner was asked if she expected staff to notify her if a pressure ulcer had deteriorated. The Nurse Practitioner stated, Yes. The Nurse Practitioner was asked when she was notified about Resident #138's coccyx pressure ulcer. The Nurse Practitioner stated, I can't recall .I didn't know about it being worse . The facility failed to notify the physician of a Stage 2 pressure ulcer on the coccyx which deteriorated to an unstageable pressure ulcer and resulted in Harm to Resident #138. .
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on The National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) Quick Reference Guide, facility policy review, medical record review...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on The National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) Quick Reference Guide, facility policy review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide the necessary treatment for the prevention and healing of pressure ulcers for 2 of 6 (Resident #53 and #138) sampled residents reviewed with pressure ulcers. The facility's failure to stage or obtain measurements of the pressure ulcer on admission, failure to notify the physician of the pressure ulcer on admission, and failure to identify the stage of the the pressure ulcer until it became unstageable resulted in actual Harm to Resident #138. The findings include: 1. The NPUAP Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Quick Reference Guide dated 2014 documented, .Comprehensive assessment of the individual and his or her pressure ulcer informs development of the most appropriate management plan and ongoing monitoring of wound healing. Effective assessment and monitoring of wound healing is based on scientific principles, as described in this section of the guideline .1. Complete a comprehensive initial assessment of the individual with a pressure ulcer .Reassess the individual, the pressure ulcer and the plan of care if the ulcer does not show signs of healing .Assess the pressure ulcer initially and re-assess it at least weekly .Document the results of all wound assessments .weekly assessments provide an opportunity for the health professional to assess the ulcer more regularly, detect complications as early as possible, and adjust the treatment plan accordingly .Address signs of deterioration immediately .Assess and document physical characteristics including: location .Stage .size .tissue type .color .periwound [area around the wound] condition .wound edges .sinus tracts [a narrow opening or passageway underneath the skin that can extend in any direction through soft tissue and results in dead space with potential for abscess formation] undermining [occurs when the tissue under the wound edges becomes eroded, resulting in a a pocket beneath the skin at the wound's edge] .tunneling [channels that extend from a wound into and through subcutaneous tissue or muscle] .exudate [drainage] .odor .Select a uniform, consistent method for measuring wound length and width or wound area to facilitate meaningful comparisons of wound measurements across time .Select a consistent, uniform method for measuring depth .Stage II: Partial Thickness Skin Loss .presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red pink wound bed .May also present as an intact or open/ruptured serum-filled blister .Unstageable: Depth unknown, Full thickness tissue loss in which the base of the ulcer is covered by a slough (yellow, tan, gray, green, or brown) and or eschar (tan, brown, or black) in the wound bed . 2. The facility's Skin Integrity Manual revised 3/1/10 documented, .ASSESSMENT .Risk Factors .Example of these risk factors include but are not limited to .Impaired/decreased mobility and decreased functional ability .Co-morbid conditions .Under nutrition, malnutrition, and hydration deficits .Wound assessment includes type, stage, location, and measurement of site .length, width and depth .Exudate .type, odor, amount, color .Wound bed to include .necrotic tissue, slough .Periwound .wound edge appearance to include description and measurement .Weekly Skin and Wound Assessments . 3. Medical record review revealed Resident #138 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Hypertension, Dementia, Hypothyroidism, Absence of a Kidney, and Malnutrition. A Hospital Wound Care note dated 7/9/19 documented, .stage 2 pressure injury to sacrum [a shield-shaped bony structure that is located at the base of the lumbar vertebrae and that is connected to the pelvis] . The Hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] documented, .[Resident #138] has developed a decubitus wound . Review of the admission Observation report dated 7/11/19 revealed Resident #138 had a pressure ulcer on his coccyx (tailbone, a bony structure located at the bottom of the vertebral column). The admission observation did not identify the stage of the coccyx pressure ulcer and there was no documentation the physician was notified the resident had a pressure ulcer. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 on 8/21/19 at 5:17 PM, in the Private Dining Room, LPN #1 confirmed that she was the admitting nurse for Resident #138 on 7/11/19. LPN #1 was asked to describe Resident #138's coccyx area when he was admitted to the facility. LPN #1 stated, .It was just reddened .top layer of skin removed, denuded skin [loss of the epidermis, caused by exposure to urine, feces, body fluids, wound exudate, or friction] . Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #138 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 which indicated the resident had moderately impaired cognition, required extensive assistance for bed mobility, was at risk for developing pressure ulcers/injury, and had a stage 2 pressure ulcer on admission. This was the first entry in the medical record that identified the pressure ulcer on Resident #138's coccyx. The Care Plan revised 8/21/19 documented, .Risk for loss or alteration in skin integrity related to presence of Stage 2 sacrum wound .Approach .air mattress maintained at all times .Administer medications and treatments as ordered .Evaluation Notes: 08/21/2019 .wounds assessed this am [morning] with coccyx noted to have slough to 75% of wound and eschar to 25% of wound .air mattress applied and turnq2 [turn every 2 hours] . There were appropriate nutritional approaches were in place. Review of the Weekly Skin Observations dated 7/17/19, 7/24/19, and 7/31/19 by LPN #1 revealed the presence of a pressure ulcer on the coccyx. The Weekly Skin Observations did not identify the stage or measurements of the pressure ulcer. The General Order dated 7/18/19 documented and signed by LPN #1 documented, .Apply cavilon protective stick [a fast-drying, non-sticky, alcohol free liquid barrier film] to coccyx area every 3 days .Nursing Order . There was no documentation the physician was notified about the new treatment. The Weekly Skin Observation dated 7/31/19 performed by LPN #1 documented, .redness open area to coccyx . The stage of the pressure ulcer was not identified and there were no measurements. There was no documentation the physician was notified about the change in the pressure ulcer. Review of a Wound Management Observation History performed by LPN #3 dated 8/1/19 revealed Resident #138's pressure ulcer had a length of 4.5 centimeters and a width of 3 centimeters with slough in the wound bed and erythema (redness) around the pressure ulcer. There was no documentation that identified the stage of the pressure ulcer. Observations on 8/19/19 at 4:35 PM, 8/20/19 at 10:19 AM, 1:59 PM, and 4:38 PM, in Resident #138's room, revealed Resident #138 did not have an air mattress on his bed. Interview with the LPN #3 on 8/21/19 at 2:44 PM in the Unit Manager office, LPN #3 was asked when he saw Resident #138's pressure ulcer. LPN #3 stated, This is when they brought me in on it .on 8/1 [8/1/19] was my first assessment and I started measuring it. LPN #3 was asked why the stage of the pressure ulcer was not identified on the assessments. LPN #3 stated, You know what? I don't know why I didn't do that. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/21/19 at 4:34 PM, in the Private Dining Room, the DON was asked if a physician had seen Resident #138's pressure ulcer on the coccyx. The DON stated, I don't know. Interview with the DON on 8/22/19 at 8:05 AM in the Private Dining Room, the DON confirmed the pressure ulcer on the coccyx had not been measured until 8/1/19. The DON confirmed the stage of the pressure ulcer on the coccyx had not been identified on the Wound Management Observations between 8/1/19 and 8/21/19. The DON was asked if the nurses should document and report any changes in a pressure ulcer to the physician. The DON stated, Yes, Ma'am. The DON was asked if a physician was notified about the deteriorating coccyx pressure ulcer. The DON stated, I don't see documentation that reflects that . The DON confirmed she had not seen Resident #138's coccyx wound until 8/21/19. The DON was asked if she had notified the physician after she saw the pressure ulcer on 8/21/19. The DON stated, .did not . The General Order dated 8/1/19 documented and signed by LPN #1 documented, .Clean with NS [Normal Saline]. Apply Medihoney [gel indicated for dry to moderately exuding wounds such as partial and full thickness pressure ulcers] to wound bed. Apply No Sting Barrier Spray to periwound and cover with protective dressing daily until resolved .Nursing Order . There was no documentation the physician was notified about the change in the wound or the change in the treatment. Interview with the DON on 8/22/19 at 8:20 AM in the Private Dining Room, the DON was asked if a physician had ordered the Medihoney treatment for the coccyx pressure ulcer. The DON confirmed it was not ordered by a physician and stated, They should have been notified. I believe she put it in as a general nursing order. Review of a Wound Management Observation History dated 8/8/19 by LPN #3 revealed the wound had increased in size to a length of 4.5 centimeters and width of 3.3 centimeters with a moderate amount of drainage. This assessment did not identify the stage of the pressure ulcer on the coccyx. There was no documentation the physician was notified the pressure ulcer had deteriorated. A General Order dated 8/14/19 received by LPN #1 documented, .Clean with NS. Apply Santyl nickel thick to wound bed. Apply No Sting Barrier Spray to periwound and cover with protective dressing daily until resolved . Telephone interview with the Nurse Practitioner on 8/22/19 at 11:27 AM, the Nurse Practitioner confirmed she was notified about the pressure ulcer and gave a telephone order for Santyl treatment (a medication that removes dead tissue) on 8/14/19. The Nurse Practitioner was asked if she had seen Resident #138's pressure ulcer. She stated, I have not. Review of the Wound Management Observation History report dated 8/15/19 performed by LPN #3 revealed the wound had progressed to a length of 4.9 centimeters, a width of 4.8 centimeters and a depth of 0.1 centimeters, with slough in the wound bed. This assessment did not identify the stage of the pressure ulcer to the coccyx. Observation in Resident #138's room on 8/21/19 at 10:40 AM, revealed Resident #138 lying on an air mattress. LPN #1 removed the dressing and it was soaked with serosanguinous (blood and serous drainage) drainage. The wound measurements were 5.5 centimeters in length and 5.5 centimeters in width. The wound bed was covered in 40% black eschar and 60% slough. The surrounding tissue was bright red with areas of maceration (skin breakdown). The depth could not be determined due to the slough and eschar in the wound bed. Interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 on 8/21/19 at 11:05 AM in Resident #138's room, CNA #1 was asked when Resident #138 was placed on the air mattress. CNA #1 stated, Today. Interview with CNA #1 on 8/21/19 at 5:48 PM, in the Second Floor Nurses' Station office, CNA #1 was asked when she first took care of Resident #138. CNA #1 stated, I had him the 18th [7/18/19]. CNA #1 was asked if she remembered what his coccyx looked like. CNA #1 stated, It was pretty bad. There was a black spot on it. It was above or on his coccyx, the same place it was now. He came here with it. CNA #1 was asked to describe it. She stated, A little smaller than a tennis ball. CNA #1 was asked what color the wound was. She stated, Black. Interview with Unit Manager #1 on 8/21/19 at 5:51 PM in the Private Dining Room, Unit Manager #1 was asked if the pressure ulcer was improving. Unit Manager #1 stated, No. I don't see that. Telephone interview with Physician #1 on 8/22/19 at 9:58 AM, Physician #1 was asked if he should have been notified about Resident #138's pressure ulcer on the coccyx. Physician #1 stated, I suspect so .you want a full team approach .with a worsening wound the nurse should raise the flag . Interview with the DON on 8/22/19 at 11:45 AM in the Private Dining Room, the DON was asked if LPN #1 or LPN #3 had wound care training. The DON confirmed they had attended wound care inservices in the facility and stated, They are not wound certified. The facility failed to stage and obtain measurements, report to the physician, and treat a pressure ulcer which resulted in actual Harm to Resident #138 when the Stage 2 pressure ulcer on the coccyx deteriorated to an unstageable pressure ulcer. 4. Medical record review revealed Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Cerebral Infarction, Alzheimer's Disease, and Hypertension. Review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #53 had a BIMS score of 10, which indicated moderately impaired cognition, and required extensive assistance from staff for bed mobility. The Care Plan dated 8/15/19 documented, .Problem .pressure ulcer .Assess the pressure ulcer for stage, size (length, width, and depth), presence/absence of granulation tissue .systematic skin inspection .Keep clean and dry . The Wound Management Observation History dated 8/15/19 performed by by LPN #3 documented, .Pressure Ulcer .Left bottom of foot . This assessment did not include measurements or stage of the pressure ulcer. The physician was not notified about this pressure ulcer until 8/16/19. The Physician's Order dated 8/16/19 signed by the physician 8/19/19 documented, .clean bottom of left foot with ns [normal saline], pat dry, apply calcium alginate [a highly absorbent, biodegradable alginate dressing derived from seaweed] .cover with 4x4 [a gauze dressing] and wrap with kerlix [sterile and non-sterile gauze rolls used for both primary and secondary dressings], change every three days . Review of the August 2019 Treatment Administration Records (TARS) revealed there was no documentation the treatments were administered since ordered on 8/16/19. A Physician's order dated 8/20/19 documented, .apply cavilon wand every three days until healed . Observations in Resident #53's room on 8/21/19 at 8:15 AM, revealed Resident #53 had a clear cavilon dressing that was dry and intact with a healing stage 2 pressure ulcer on the ball of the left foot. Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #2 on 8/20/19 at 5:06 PM, in the Second Floor Nurses' Station office, RN #2 was asked what Resident #53's pressure ulcer on the ball of his left foot looked like when she first found it. RN #2 stated, It was a fluid filled pressure ulcer. Interview with the DON on 8/21/19 at 9:23 AM in the Private Dining Room, the DON was asked if treatments were ordered when the wound was identified on the bottom of the left foot on 8/15/19. The DON stated, No, Ma'am. It was on the 16th. The DON confirmed there was no documentation the treatments were administered as ordered.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

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 provide mouth and nai...

Read full inspector narrative →
**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 mouth and nail care for 1 of 1 (Resident #29) sampled residents reviewed for ADL care. The findings include: The facility's NURSING POLICIES revised 2/2019 documented, .In the event that an individual patient is unable to participate in his or her own care, center care partners will assure that the patient's hygiene and comfort needs are met . Medical record review revealed Resident #29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Heart Failure, Osteoarthritis, Contracture of the Right Hand, Dysphagia, Parkinson's Disease, Anxiety, and Depression. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, which indicated cognitively intact and Resident #29 required extensive assistance of staff for his personal hygiene. Resident #29's Care Plan dated 6/10/19 documented, .Problem .ADL's [activities of daily living], limited ability to perform self care related to: diagnoses of osteoarthritis, right hand contracture, Parkinson's, depression, and muscle weakness .Approach .Assist with all ADL's as needed .Problem .Diabetes .Approach .Foot and nail care . Observations in Resident #29's room on 8/19/19 at 4:37 PM, 8/20/19 at 10:26 AM and 4:42 PM, revealed Resident #29 had cracked lips and his left hand had long fingernails with a thick brown substance under the nails. Observations in Resident #29's room on 8/21/19 at 8:11 AM, revealed Resident #29 had long fingernails with a brown substance under all the nails. Resident #29 was feeding himself with his hands. Resident #29's lips were cracked. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 on 8/21/19 at 3:15 PM in Resident #29's room, LPN #1 was asked to describe the nails on Resident #29's left hand. LPN #1 stated, They need cutting and they need to be cleaned. LPN #1 was asked if Resident #29 should have long nails with a brown substance under the nails. LPN #1 stated, No, it is not acceptable. LPN #1 opened Resident #29's hand to reveal the thumb, index, and middle fingernails were long, thick, and yellow. Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 on 8/21/19 at 4:44 PM at the Continuing Care Nurses' Station, RN #1 was asked who should ensure the residents receive oral care. RN #1 stated, That's not something I do. RN #1 was asked if there were supplies available to moisturize the resident's lips. RN #1 stated, We don't have that available here . Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/22/19 at 9:24 AM in the Private Dining Room, the DON was asked if it was appropriate for residents to have long nails with a thick brown substance underneath them. The DON stated, No. The DON confirmed that mouth care should be provided for residents that are unable to perform mouth care for themselves and that there were mouth care supplies available.
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, observation, and interview, the facility failed to monitor for side effe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**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 monitor for side effects and behaviors and failed to document an appropriate diagnosis for the use of an antipsychotic medication for 1 of 5 (Resident #58) sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The findings include: The facility's DOCUMENTATION AND COMMUNICATION OF CONSULTANT PHARMACIST RECOMMENDATIONS policy dated 6/2016 documented, .Recommendations are acted upon and documented by the facility staff and/or the prescriber. If the prescriber does not respond to recommendation directed to him/her within a reasonable time frame or within 30 days, the Director of Nursing and/or the consultant pharmacist may contact the Medical Director . Medical record review revealed Resident #58 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Femur Fracture, Left Hip Replacement, Dementia Without Behaviors, Pneumonia, Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 3, Anxiety, and Depression. Review of the Physician Order Report for August 2019 revealed Resident #58 was receiving quetiapine (an antipsychotic medication) 400 milligrams (mg) daily at 8:00 AM with a start date of 7/2/19, quetiapine 400 mg daily at 6:00 PM with a start date of 6/19/19 for a diagnosis of Vascular Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance, and clonazepam (an antianxiety medication) 0.5 mg daily with a start date of 6/26/19 for a diagnosis of Anxiety. The quetiapine dosage was changed on 8/15/19 to 200 mg daily at 8:00 AM and 400 mg daily at 5:00 PM. The clonazepam dosage was changed on 8/15/19 to 0.5 mg daily at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for June, July, and August 2019 revealed Resident #58 received quetiapine and clonazepam. There was no documentation of monitoring for side effects or behaviors. The Consultant Pharmacist's Medication Regimen Review dated 6/24/19 documented, .This resident is receiving the antipsychotic agent Seroquel [quetiapine], but lacks an allowable diagnosis to support its use .Please provide diagnosis for Seroquel based on the appropriate diagnoses above, or consider discontinuing if Seroquel is not being used for an appropriate diagnosis . The Consultant Pharmacist's Medication Regimen Review dated 7/17/19 documented, .2nd Request .Patient has order for Seroquel .Please add anxiolytic side effect monitoring, antipsychotic side effect monitoring, and psychoactive behavior monitoring .2nd Request .Order for quetiapine has a diagnosis of 'Vascular dementia without behavioral disturbance' associated with it in [named computer system]. This is not an appropriate diagnosis for Seroquel. Please remove 'Vascular dementia without behavioral disturbance' from quetiapine order . Observations in Resident #58's room on 8/20/19 at 4:39 PM and on 8/21/19 at 8:17 AM, revealed no verbal response could be elicited from Resident #58. Interview with Unit Manager #2 on 8/21/19 at 3:25 PM in the Unit Manager's office, the Unit Manager #2 was asked if the side effects and behavior monitoring should be documented on the MAR. Unit Manager #2 stated, Yes .I'm not seeing them [side effects and behavior monitoring] on the MAR. Unit Manager #2 was asked if there was an appropriate diagnosis for the use of Seroquel. Unit Manager #2 confirmed she did not see an appropriate diagnosis.
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 was stored, prepared, and served under sanitary conditions as evidenced by a blackish substance in 1 of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served under sanitary conditions as evidenced by a blackish substance in 1 of 1 ice maker, 5 (Dietary Aide #1, Dietary Aide #2, Outside Vendor #1, Outside Vendor #2, [NAME] #1)facility staff and outside vendors in the kitchen without hair and beard restraints, and 1 of 24 (Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1) staff members placed a meal tray from a resident's room back on the meal cart with clean trays. The facility's failure had the potential to affect 126 of the 127 residents residents receiving a meal tray from the kitchen. The findings include: 1. The facility's Food Service Establishment policy revised July 2015 documented, .food employees shall wear hair restraints such as hats, hair coverings or nets, beard restraints, and clothing that covers body hair, that are designed and worn effectively, keep their hair from contacting exposed food .clean equipment, utensils, and linens . Observations in the kitchen on 8/19/19 at 10:40 AM and 8/20/19 at 7:50 AM, revealed a blackish film on the inside walls of the ice machine. Observations in the kitchen on 8/19/19 at 10:45 AM and 8/21/19 at 10:55 AM, revealed Dietary Aide #2 in the kitchen without a hair restraint. Observations in the kitchen on 8/19/19 at 10:47 AM, revealed Outside Vendor #1 walked through the kitchen with a cart of bread without a hair or beard restraint. Observations in the kitchen on 8/19/19 at 10:58 AM and 8/22/19 at 7:40 AM, revealed Dietary Aide #1 was assisting on the front tray line. His mustache was not covered by a hair restraint. Observations in the kitchen on 8/20/19 at 11:10 AM, revealed Outside Vendor #2 walked through the kitchen without a hair restraint. Observations in the kitchen on 8/20/19 at 11:15 AM, revealed [NAME] #1 did not have a hair or beard restraint. Interview with the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) on 8/22/19 at 8:43 AM in the Dining Room, the CDM was asked if it was appropriate to have a slimy film in the ice maker. The CDM stated, No ma'am. The CDM was asked if the dietary staff or delivery personnel should wear a hair and beard restraint when in the kitchen. The CDM confirmed the staff and outside vendors should have been wearing hair restraints and stated, .it's frustrating . 2. The facility's SAFETY & SANITATION BEST PRACTICE GUIDELINES policy with a revised date of 11/2017 documented, .To prevent cross-contamination, in-room trays and soiled dishes should not be placed on carts with clean food and trays that have not been served . Observations in the 1100 Hall on 8/19/19 at 11:40 AM revealed CNA #2 carried a meal tray into a resident's room, placed it on the over bed table, and walked out of the room to the meal cart in the hall. The resident was not on the room. At 11:42 AM, CNA #2 went back into the resident's room, picked up the meal tray, carried the meal tray to the meal cart, and placed the dirty tray into the meal cart with 5 clean meal trays. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/22/19 at 8:32 AM in the Private Dining Room, the DON was asked if a meal tray that had been left in a resident room should be placed inside the cart with clean trays. The DON stated, No Ma'am, it is mixing clean and dirty.
Oct 2018 2 deficiencies
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, observation, and interview the facility failed to ensure the facility was free from accident hazards as ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, observation, and interview the facility failed to ensure the facility was free from accident hazards as evidenced by sharps and aerosol cans in 2 of 116 (room [ROOM NUMBER] and 2303) resident rooms. The findings include: Review of the admission packet form FOR YOUR GUIDANCE revealed .Items that the patient cannot keep in their room .Air fresheners .Any item in aerosol cans .Sharp items such as .scissors . Observations in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 10/15/18 at 11:26 AM and 5:06 PM revealed a pair of scissors on the window sill. Observation in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 10/15/18 at 12:14 PM revealed a screw driver and screws on top of a cart. Observation in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 10/17/18 at 6:00 PM revealed a pair of scissors, 1 bottle aerosol air freshener, and screws on a cart. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/17/18 at 6:25 PM in the DON office, the DON was asked if it was acceptable for aerosol air freshener to be stored in a resident's room. The DON stated, No. The DON confirmed sharps should not be stored in a resident's room.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored securely and safely as...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored securely and safely as evidenced by unattended medications in 3 of 116 (room [ROOM NUMBER], 1406, and 2303) resident rooms. The findings include: Review of the admission packet form FOR YOUR GUIDANCE revealed, .Items that the patient cannot keep in their room .Any medication items .Over the counter medication .Prescription medications . Observations in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 10/15/18 at 11:26 AM and 5:06 PM revealed 4 syringes of heparin (a blood thinner) on the bedside table and 1 bottle of [NAME] Isopto liquid tear eye drops on the over bed table. Observation in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 10/15/18 at 3:40 PM revealed a bottle of Blue Emu (a pain relief cream) and 2 bottles of Peroxyl mouthwash (a medicated mouthwash) on the over bed table. Observation in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 10/15/18 at 11:33 AM revealed 1 bottle of Artic Blast (a pain relieving topical medication) and 1 container of Real Time XX (a pain relief cream) on the window sill. Observation in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 10/15/18 at 5:06 PM revealed a container of Anasept Plus (a wound cleanser) on the bed side table. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/17/18 at 6:25 PM in the DON office, the DON was asked if Blue Emu cream, heparin, [NAME] Isopto liquid tear eye drops, and Anasept Plus should be stored in the resident's room or at the resident's bedside. The DON stated, No. The DON confirmed Artic Blast and Real Time XX should not be stored in the resident's room.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

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

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Tennessee facilities.
Concerns
  • • 8 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • 60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 65/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Nhc Place At Cool Springs's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns NHC PLACE AT COOL SPRINGS an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Tennessee, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Nhc Place At Cool Springs Staffed?

CMS rates NHC PLACE AT COOL SPRINGS's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 14 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 Nhc Place At Cool Springs?

State health inspectors documented 8 deficiencies at NHC PLACE AT COOL SPRINGS during 2018 to 2022. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 6 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Nhc Place At Cool Springs?

NHC PLACE AT COOL SPRINGS 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 NATIONAL HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 121 certified beds and approximately 69 residents (about 57% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in FRANKLIN, Tennessee.

How Does Nhc Place At Cool Springs Compare to Other Tennessee Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Tennessee, NHC PLACE AT COOL SPRINGS's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (60%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Nhc Place At Cool Springs?

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 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 facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Nhc Place At Cool Springs Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, NHC PLACE AT COOL SPRINGS 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 4-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 Nhc Place At Cool Springs Stick Around?

Staff turnover at NHC PLACE AT COOL SPRINGS is high. At 60%, the facility is 14 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 Nhc Place At Cool Springs Ever Fined?

NHC PLACE AT COOL SPRINGS has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Nhc Place At Cool Springs on Any Federal Watch List?

NHC PLACE AT COOL SPRINGS 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.