COMMUNITY CARE OF RUTHERFORD
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
Community Care of Rutherford has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance and significant concerns about the quality of care. It ranks #238 out of 298 nursing homes in Tennessee, placing it in the bottom half of facilities in the state and #5 out of 8 in Rutherford County, meaning only three local options are worse. While the facility is on an improving trend, reducing issues from 14 in 2022 to just 1 in 2024, it has a concerning history with critical incidents. Staffing is below average with a rating of 2/5 stars, but a 0% turnover rate is a positive sign, showing staff stability. Specific incidents include the failure to implement a care plan for a resident at risk of wandering, which resulted in the resident eloping from the facility, placing them in immediate jeopardy. Overall, while there are some improvements and strengths, the facility has significant weaknesses that families should carefully consider.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Tennessee
- #238/298
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- Turnover data not reported for this facility.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Tennessee facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 42 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Tennessee. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 23 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
The Ugly 23 deficiencies on record
Mar 2024
1 deficiency
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 F0760
(Tag F0760)
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 ensure a resident was free of sign...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
3 deficiencies
3 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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
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, facility document review, observation, and interview, the facility faile...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility's policy review, medical record review, facility documentation review, observation, and interview, the facilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Administration
(Tag F0835)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on job description review, facility policy review, and interview, Administration failed to administer the facility in a ma...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2022
11 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
A resident was harmed · 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 implement a care plan intervention ...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · 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 prevent an accident which resulted...
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
**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 ensure 95 of 98 (3 of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
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 resident ide...
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, facility documentation, and interview, the facilty failed to update/revi...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 ADL (activitie...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 medical record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to keep water in reach for 1 of 35 sampled reside...
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 facility policy review, medical record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 5 sampled residents (...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, facility documentation review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Deficiency Text Not Available
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to serve food in a sanitary manner for residents being assisted with the lunch meal on 6/27/2022.
The findings include:...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2019
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
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 complete an Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment timely...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0638
(Tag F0638)
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 complete a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 1 (#1) of 30...
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 medical record review and interview the facility failed to accurately assess a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessm...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
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, interview and test tray, the facility failed to provide foo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy review, observation and interview, the facility failed to store food in a safe and sanitary manner as evidenced by expired foods in the kitchen dry storage room.
The Findings ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2018
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
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 administer oxygen at ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to serve attractive pureed texture food for 1 of 5 meal observations.
The findings include:
Observation on 8/27/18 at 11:15 AM at the dietary de...
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, observation, and interview, the facility failed to label and date oxygen...
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?"
- "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.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s), 2 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 23 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Community Care Of Rutherford's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns COMMUNITY CARE OF RUTHERFORD 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 Community Care Of Rutherford Staffed?
CMS rates COMMUNITY CARE OF RUTHERFORD's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes.
What Have Inspectors Found at Community Care Of Rutherford?
State health inspectors documented 23 deficiencies at COMMUNITY CARE OF RUTHERFORD during 2018 to 2024. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, and 18 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 Community Care Of Rutherford?
COMMUNITY CARE OF RUTHERFORD is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 131 certified beds and approximately 89 residents (about 68% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in MURFREESBORO, Tennessee.
How Does Community Care Of Rutherford Compare to Other Tennessee Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Tennessee, COMMUNITY CARE OF RUTHERFORD's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8 and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Community Care Of Rutherford?
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?" "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?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Community Care Of Rutherford Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, COMMUNITY CARE OF RUTHERFORD has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations (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 Community Care Of Rutherford Stick Around?
COMMUNITY CARE OF RUTHERFORD has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.
Was Community Care Of Rutherford Ever Fined?
COMMUNITY CARE OF RUTHERFORD 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 Community Care Of Rutherford on Any Federal Watch List?
COMMUNITY CARE OF RUTHERFORD 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.