Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: PRESTIGE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES (9 facilities, chain avg rating 2.6★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 6, 2026
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Jun 5, 2025
$66,472
Fines, last 3 years
3.66
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, isolated · Jun 5, 2025 · F-0686 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving.
Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.
Severity (J): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Jun 24, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 11 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences. F-0553
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. F-0641
J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated
The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaintF-0686
View all 11 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
Date
Severity
What the facility was cited for
May 6, 2026
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences. · F-0553
May 6, 2026
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641
Jun 5, 2025
▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, isolated
The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint · F-0686
Aug 4, 2021
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880
Aug 4, 2021
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641
Aug 4, 2021
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657
Aug 4, 2021
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688
Aug 4, 2021
D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Mar 11, 2020
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698
Mar 11, 2020
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812
Mar 11, 2020
E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 2).
Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2020
All citations:
3
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2021
All citations:
5
Serious citations (G–L):
0
2025
All citations:
1
Serious citations (G–L):
1
2026
All citations:
2
Serious citations (G–L):
0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Year
Citations
Serious (G–L)
Worst severity that year
2020
3
0
E
2021
5
0
E
2025
1
1
J ▲
2026
2
0
D
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
Date
Type
Amount / length
Jun 5, 2025
Fine
$66,472
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityTennessee averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility:
3.66
Tennessee average:
3.62
U.S. average:
3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility:
0.52
Tennessee average:
0.57
U.S. average:
0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility:
2.84
Tennessee average:
3.15
U.S. average:
3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
Measure
This facility
Tennessee avg
U.S. avg
Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
3.66
3.62
3.95
top 36% in Tennessee; bottom 45% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours
0.52
0.57
0.69
top 49% in Tennessee; bottom 41% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing
2.84
3.15
3.50
bottom 35% in Tennessee; bottom 23% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)
0.20
0.39
0.48
bottom 13% in Tennessee; bottom 12% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)
45.7
48.9
45.8
top 41% in Tennessee; bottom 48% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)
44.4
43.2
42.9
bottom 45% in Tennessee; bottom 45% in the U.S.
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 4.09, RN 0.58, weekend 3.17.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.09 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Ripley Healthcare and Rehab Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
All 12 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Prestige Administrative Services — 9 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.