SHELBY OAKS POST ACUTE
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
Shelby Oaks Post Acute has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about its quality of care. It ranks #283 out of 298 facilities in Tennessee and #23 out of 24 in Shelby County, placing it in the bottom half of all local options. While the trend shows improvement, with the number of reported issues decreasing from 11 in 2022 to just 2 in 2025, the facility still faces serious challenges, including high staff turnover at 76%, which is well above the state average. The facility has incurred fines totaling $108,768, which is concerning and suggests ongoing compliance issues. Specific incidents include a resident being transferred to the hospital after multiple signs of potential abuse and another resident experiencing significant weight loss due to inadequate nutritional monitoring. On a positive note, the facility has more registered nurse coverage than 77% of Tennessee facilities, which can help catch problems that other staff might miss.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Tennessee
- #283/298
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 76% turnover. Very high, 28 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $108,768 in fines. Higher than 66% of Tennessee facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 43 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Tennessee. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below Tennessee average (2.8)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
30pts above Tennessee avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Well above median ($33,413)
Significant penalties indicating serious issues
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
28 points above Tennessee average of 48%
The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record
Sept 2025
2 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 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 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, medical record review, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) run report review, hospital record revi...
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
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, facility investigation review, and interview, the facility failed to ens...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
11 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
A resident was harmed · 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 accurately assess the nutritio...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to maintain or enhance residents' dignity and respect when 5 of 12 staff members (Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 and #2, A...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0565
(Tag F0565)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide privacy for 7 of 7 residents (Resident #1, #12, #18, #27, #33, #41, and #57) during a group interview with Resident Council members.
...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0569
(Tag F0569)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of resident trust accounts, policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to refund t...
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 policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to follow the comprehensive Care Plan for 2 of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility documentation review and interview the facility failed to ensure there was a Registered Nurse (RN) on duty for 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week for 16 of 20 days (10/8/2022, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on policy review, facility documentation review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to post the Daily Nurse Staffing form for 1 of 2 days of survey.
The findings include:
1. Review ...
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 properly stored and secured when medications were found unattended and unsecured in 1 of 5 (300 Hall ...
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 observation and interviews policy review, the facility failed to ensure practices to prevent the potential spread of infection when 2 of 2 staff members (Activity Director and Certified Nursi...
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 a medication administra...
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, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was food was prepared and served under sanitary conditions when soiled serving scoops were...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2021
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
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 a continuous tube feeding was administ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
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 follow Physician's Orders for required laboratory monitorin...
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, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ...
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 observation and interview, the facility failed to properly store and maintain medications safely when 1 of 5 nurses (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3) left medications unattended and out of ...
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 Environmental Cleaning Infection Control Compliance Log, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure prac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0919
(Tag F0919)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide a functioning call light for 1 of 24 sampled residents (Resident #170) which had the potential to result in unmet car...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2019
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
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 nutritional interventio...
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 to prevent the potential spread of infection were followed when 1 of 4 (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1) n...
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?"
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "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: Federal abuse finding, 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $108,768 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 21 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $108,768 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Tennessee. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Shelby Oaks Post Acute's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SHELBY OAKS POST ACUTE 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 Shelby Oaks Post Acute Staffed?
CMS rates SHELBY OAKS POST ACUTE's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 76%, which is 30 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 79%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Shelby Oaks Post Acute?
State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at SHELBY OAKS POST ACUTE during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 19 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 Shelby Oaks Post Acute?
SHELBY OAKS POST ACUTE 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 LINKS HEALTHCARE GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 77 certified beds and approximately 57 residents (about 74% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MEMPHIS, Tennessee.
How Does Shelby Oaks Post Acute Compare to Other Tennessee Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Tennessee, SHELBY OAKS POST ACUTE's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (76%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Shelby Oaks Post Acute?
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?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Shelby Oaks Post Acute Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SHELBY OAKS POST ACUTE has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-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 Shelby Oaks Post Acute Stick Around?
Staff turnover at SHELBY OAKS POST ACUTE is high. At 76%, the facility is 30 percentage points above the Tennessee average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 79%. 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 Shelby Oaks Post Acute Ever Fined?
SHELBY OAKS POST ACUTE has been fined $108,768 across 2 penalty actions. This is 3.2x the Tennessee average of $34,167. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.
Is Shelby Oaks Post Acute on Any Federal Watch List?
SHELBY OAKS POST ACUTE 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.