WEXFORD HOUSE
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Wexford House in Kingsport, Tennessee has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average-neither great nor terrible. With a state rank of #224 out of 298 facilities, they fall in the bottom half of Tennessee nursing homes, and they rank #4 out of 7 in Sullivan County, indicating that only three local options are better. The facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 6 in 2024 to 7 in 2025. Staffing is a strength here, with a 4 out of 5-star rating and a turnover rate of 38%, which is lower than the state average of 48%, suggesting that many staff members stay long-term and have good knowledge of the residents' needs. While there have been no fines recorded, there have been several concerning incidents noted, such as the failure to keep kitchen cooking equipment sanitary, which could affect a large number of residents, and issues with staff not properly understanding how to test chemical sanitation for dishwashers. Overall, Wexford House shows some strengths in staffing but has significant concerns regarding sanitation and health standards.
- Trust Score
- C
- In Tennessee
- #224/298
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 38% turnover. Near Tennessee's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Tennessee facilities.
- 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
- 14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (38%)
10 points below Tennessee average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Tennessee average (2.8)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Tennessee avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
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, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to provide a homelike ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
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, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to develop a person-ce...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the facility policy, review of the facility's Narcotic (a category of perception-altering or sensory-dulling ...
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 facility policy review, medical record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure proper infec...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0802
(Tag F0802)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on review of facility documentation, observation, and interview, the facility failed to employ staff with the appropriate competencies to maintain and ensure manufacturers guidelines were follow...
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 facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure kitchen cooking equipment was maintained in a clean and sanitary condition and food was stored, prepared, and...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0813
(Tag F0813)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident personal refrigerator logs...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
6 deficiencies
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, observati...
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 facility policy review, medical record review, and interviews, the facility failed to include 1 resident (Resident #31)...
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
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure expired supplies were not available f...
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, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure garbage and refuse were properly contained in 2 of 2 dumpsters (dumpster #1 and #2).
The findings include:
...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff maintained residents' dignity...
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, observations, and interview, the facility failed to ensure kitchen cooking equipment was maintained in a sanitary condition which had the potential to affect 82 of 86 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2020
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0604
(Tag F0604)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to identify and assess restraint...
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 major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Tennessee facilities.
- • 38% turnover. Below Tennessee's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • Grade C (55/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Wexford House's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns WEXFORD HOUSE an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Wexford House Staffed?
CMS rates WEXFORD HOUSE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 38%, compared to the Tennessee average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Wexford House?
State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at WEXFORD HOUSE during 2020 to 2025. These included: 14 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Wexford House?
WEXFORD HOUSE 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 AHAVA HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 174 certified beds and approximately 75 residents (about 43% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in KINGSPORT, Tennessee.
How Does Wexford House Compare to Other Tennessee Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Tennessee, WEXFORD HOUSE's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (38%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Wexford House?
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 Wexford House Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, WEXFORD HOUSE 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 2-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 Wexford House Stick Around?
WEXFORD HOUSE has a staff turnover rate of 38%, 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 Wexford House Ever Fined?
WEXFORD HOUSE 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 Wexford House on Any Federal Watch List?
WEXFORD HOUSE 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.