THE VILLAGE AT GERMANTOWN
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
The Village at Germantown has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating that it is slightly above average, but not particularly exceptional. In Tennessee, it ranks #153 out of 298 facilities, placing it in the bottom half of the state, while it ranks #8 out of 24 in Shelby County, meaning only seven local options are better. Unfortunately, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with the number of reported issues increasing from 5 in 2019 to 6 in 2022. Staffing is a strong point, achieving a perfect 5/5 star rating with a turnover rate that matches the state average at 48%. Importantly, there have been no fines recorded, which is a positive sign. However, there have been concerning incidents, such as a failure to provide necessary care for a resident with pressure ulcers, which caused actual harm, and issues with food safety, including improper hand hygiene by kitchen staff and failure to maintain food at safe temperatures. While the staffing quality is a highlight, these health and safety concerns are significant weaknesses to consider.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Tennessee
- #153/298
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 48% 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 52 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Tennessee. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, 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
The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record
Sept 2022
6 deficiencies
1 Harm
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 review of the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP) Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Quick Refere...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0553
(Tag F0553)
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 Care Plan conference meetings were held at least quar...
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 policy review, medical record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure pressure risk assessments were comple...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 medical record review and interview the facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plan to reflect the use of ant...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
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 vitals signs were taken for the use o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was served under sanitary. The facility had a census of 36 with 21 of those residents receiving a food tray from ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2019
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0729
(Tag F0729)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy review, new employee file review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 8 (Certified Nursing Assista...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0730
(Tag F0730)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on policy review, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) training record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 8 (CNA #1 and 2) CNAs employed for a full year received at least 12 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the GERIATRIC MEDICATION HANDBOOK, 13TH EDITION provided by the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists, m...
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
Based on Caviwipes Directions for Use review, policy review, observation, and interview, 3 of 3 (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, 2, and 3) nurses failed to ensure practices to prevent the potential...
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 when staff failed to perform proper hand hygiene and h...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2018
4 deficiencies
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 policy review, medical record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 (Resident #11) re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 policy review, medical record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to have a complete and accurate me...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
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 send the ombudsman a notice of transfer or d...
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 policy review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure practices were maintained to prevent the potential spread of infection when 5 of 9 (Hospitality Associates #4, 5, 6 and...
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
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Tennessee facilities.
- • 15 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
About This Facility
What is The Village At Germantown's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns THE VILLAGE AT GERMANTOWN 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 The Village At Germantown Staffed?
CMS rates THE VILLAGE AT GERMANTOWN's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 48%, compared to the Tennessee average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at The Village At Germantown?
State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at THE VILLAGE AT GERMANTOWN during 2018 to 2022. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 14 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates The Village At Germantown?
THE VILLAGE AT GERMANTOWN 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 55 certified beds and approximately 52 residents (about 95% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in GERMANTOWN, Tennessee.
How Does The Village At Germantown Compare to Other Tennessee Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Tennessee, THE VILLAGE AT GERMANTOWN's overall rating (3 stars) is above the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (48%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Village At Germantown?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"
Is The Village At Germantown Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, THE VILLAGE AT GERMANTOWN 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 The Village At Germantown Stick Around?
THE VILLAGE AT GERMANTOWN has a staff turnover rate of 48%, 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 The Village At Germantown Ever Fined?
THE VILLAGE AT GERMANTOWN 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 The Village At Germantown on Any Federal Watch List?
THE VILLAGE AT GERMANTOWN 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.