SMYRNA CARE CENTER
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
Smyrna Care Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns regarding the quality of care provided. It ranks #288 out of 298 facilities in Tennessee, placing it in the bottom half of nursing homes in the state, and #6 out of 8 in Rutherford County, meaning only two local options are worse. The facility is on an improving trend, with issues decreasing from 9 in 2020 to 4 in 2022, but it still has a concerning total of 33 deficiencies, including 4 critical issues that put residents at immediate risk. Staffing is average, with a rating of 3 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 58%, which is slightly above the state average. Notably, there were critical incidents where residents were not adequately supervised, leading to risks of elopement and unsafe smoking conditions, highlighting serious shortcomings in care management. Overall, while there are some positive trends, serious deficiencies raise significant concerns for families considering this facility.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Tennessee
- #288/298
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 58% 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 ○ 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
- 33 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
12pts above Tennessee avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
10 points above Tennessee average of 48%
The Ugly 33 deficiencies on record
Nov 2022
4 deficiencies
4 IJ (4 facility-wide)
CRITICAL
(L)
📢 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 most or all residents
⚠️ Facility-wide issue
**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 implement a care pl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(L)
📢 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 most or all residents
⚠️ Facility-wide issue
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy review, Facility Reported Incident (FRI) review, medical record review, observation, and interview, the...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(L)
📢 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 most or all residents
⚠️ Facility-wide issue
Based on the job description review and interview, Administration failed to administer the facility in a manner that enabled the facility to use its resources effectively and efficiently to attain the...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(L)
📢 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
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents
⚠️ Facility-wide issue
Based on facility policy review, Facility Reported Incident (FRI) review, medical record review, interviews, and observations, the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) failed to...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2020
9 deficiencies
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 medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to treat 1 of 5 residents (Resident #391) who re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility documentation review, medical record review, observation, and interview the facility failed to have a call lig...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
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, and interview, the facility failed to pre...
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 capture Hospice Services on the Quarterly Minimum Data Set ...
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 medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 41 residents (Resident #31) had c...
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 and interview the facility failed to implement physician's orders for 1 of 41 residents (Resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 label and date oxygen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on facility documentation review and interview the facility failed to post complete daily staffing sheets of nursing hours for 18 months.
The findings include:
Observation of the posted daily st...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**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 post signage for 1 of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2019
7 deficiencies
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 medical record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to provide 1 (#16) of 5 residents with dignity du...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
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 perform a level 2 Preadmission Screening and Resident Revie...
Read full inspector narrative →
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, facility's performance skill checklist oxygen delivery form review, medical record review, obse...
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
Based on Pharmacy contract review, observation and interview, the pharmacy services failed to ensure medications and biologicals were stored and labeled according to current professional standards of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**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 store medications and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0800
(Tag F0800)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to sanitize a thermometer while obtaining food temperatures in 1 of 5 observations of the dietary department.
The findings include:
Observation ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to serve food in a safe and sanitary manner for 1...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2018
13 deficiencies
5 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
This REQUIREMENT is not met as evidenced by:
Based on medical record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the Physician when Resident #68 incurred substantial injury related to a fall,...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
A resident was harmed · 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 provide skin assessments for Resident (#68). ...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
A resident was harmed · 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 provide timely treatment after a fall for 1 r...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 facility policy review, medical record review, and interview, the facility failed to prevent a pressure ulcer for 1 res...
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 medical record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to update the Care Plan with interventions for R...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on facility policy review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure call lights were within reach for 10 residents (#3, #27, #35, #37, #43, #44, #65, #68, #71, #80) of 93 reside...
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 care plan for 2 residents (#45, #68) of 19 resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
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 utilize devices to improve range of motion fo...
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 observation and interview, the facility failed to post the current staffing for 1 of 3 days.
The findings included:
Observation of the posted staffing on 12/20/17 at 11:45 AM revealed the pos...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
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 behavior monitoring for 1 resident (#81) of 5 resi...
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 facility policy review, observation, and interview the facility failed to lock 1 of 5 medication carts.
The findings included:
Review of facility policy, Medication Storage in the Facility, u...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on facility policy, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure call lights were functioning properly in 7 o...
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 observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain dietary equipment in a clean and sanitary manner in 1 of 3 kitchen observations affecting 92 of 93 residents.
The findings included:...
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
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Tennessee facilities.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 4 life-threatening violation(s), 5 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 33 deficiencies on record, including 4 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Smyrna's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SMYRNA CARE CENTER 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 Smyrna Staffed?
CMS rates SMYRNA CARE CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 58%, which is 12 percentage points above the Tennessee average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Smyrna?
State health inspectors documented 33 deficiencies at SMYRNA CARE CENTER during 2018 to 2022. These included: 4 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 5 that caused actual resident harm, and 24 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 Smyrna?
SMYRNA CARE CENTER 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 EXCEPTIONAL LIVING CENTERS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 125 certified beds and approximately 79 residents (about 63% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in SMYRNA, Tennessee.
How Does Smyrna Compare to Other Tennessee Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Tennessee, SMYRNA CARE CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.8, staff turnover (58%) 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 Smyrna?
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 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 facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Smyrna Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SMYRNA CARE CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 4 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 Smyrna Stick Around?
Staff turnover at SMYRNA CARE CENTER is high. At 58%, the facility is 12 percentage points above the Tennessee average of 46%. 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 Smyrna Ever Fined?
SMYRNA CARE CENTER 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 Smyrna on Any Federal Watch List?
SMYRNA CARE CENTER 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.