FAIRPARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Fairpark Health and Rehabilitation has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility. Ranking #186 out of 298 nursing homes in Tennessee places it in the bottom half, while it is #3 out of 6 in Blount County, meaning only two local options are worse. The facility is improving overall, with issues decreasing from 8 in 2024 to 5 in 2025, but it still faces serious challenges. Staffing is a weakness, rated at 1 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 57%, which is above the state average, indicating instability among staff. However, it has good RN coverage, surpassing 81% of facilities in Tennessee, which can help catch potential problems. Specific incidents of concern include a failure to protect a severely cognitively impaired resident from sexual abuse and a lack of proper care planning to address her needs, placing her and others at risk. Additionally, there were issues with food storage that could have affected many residents. On a positive note, the facility does have excellent quality measures rated at 5 out of 5 stars, suggesting some aspects of care may be performing well despite the serious issues highlighted in inspections.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Tennessee
- #186/298
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 57% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $27,771 in fines. Lower than most Tennessee facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 33 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Tennessee. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 15 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
Below Tennessee average (2.8)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
11pts above Tennessee avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
9 points above Tennessee average of 48%
The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record
Jul 2025
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the residents' health information remained private and confidential on 1 medication cart (Back 100 cart) 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 Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual review, facility policy review, medical record r...
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 interviews, the facility failed to prevent a medication error for 1 ...
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 perform appropriate...
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, observations, and interview, the facility failed to ensure an employee's personal food items were not stored in the kitchen reach-in cooler and failed to ensure frozen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
8 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
Based on facility policy review, medical record review, observations, and interviews the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, homelike environment on 1 of 2 hallways, and 5 resident's (Resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Version 3.0 Manual,...
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 review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Version 3.0 Manual,...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 facility policy review, medical record review, and interview the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan for 1 ...
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 medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to follow a physician's order for 2 residents (R...
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, safety data sheet review, medical record review, observations, and interviews the facility fail...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0699
(Tag F0699)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, facility policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 resident (Resident # 54) of 20 sa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview the facility failed to maintain mechanical equipment in a safe operating condition in 2 of 2 dryers observed in the laundry room.
The findi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
2 deficiencies
2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL
(K)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, facility investigation review, facility documentation review, observatio...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(K)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, facility documentation review and interview, the facility failed to deve...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $27,771 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 15 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $27,771 in fines. Higher than 94% of Tennessee facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (21/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Fairpark's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns FAIRPARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 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 Fairpark Staffed?
CMS rates FAIRPARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 57%, which is 11 percentage points above the Tennessee average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 65%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Fairpark?
State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at FAIRPARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 13 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Fairpark?
FAIRPARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 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 SIMCHA HYMAN & NAFTALI ZANZIPER, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 75 certified beds and approximately 70 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MARYVILLE, Tennessee.
How Does Fairpark Compare to Other Tennessee Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Tennessee, FAIRPARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (57%) 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 Fairpark?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Fairpark Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, FAIRPARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Tennessee. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Fairpark Stick Around?
Staff turnover at FAIRPARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION is high. At 57%, the facility is 11 percentage points above the Tennessee average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 65%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. 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 Fairpark Ever Fined?
FAIRPARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION has been fined $27,771 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Tennessee average of $33,357. 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 Fairpark on Any Federal Watch List?
FAIRPARK HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 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.