Wood-Lawn Heights
2800 Neeley Street, Batesville, AR 72501 · Non profit - Other · 140 certified beds · (870) 793-7195 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (31% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- the CMS record shows $12,695 in federal fines (most recent 2024-05-22)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 10.0% | 9.5% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.1% | 4.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.9% | 0.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.0% | 1.2% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.3% | 1.4% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.9% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 24.0% | 10.1% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.8% | 21.7% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.7% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.9% | 13.5% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.7% | 10.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.5% | 77.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 30.2% | 24.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.6% | 12.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 4.42 | 2.01 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.57 | 2.13 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
36.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 158 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 44.3% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 88 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 55% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 36.8%CMS range 30.4–44.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.1%CMS range 7.3–13.8 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 44.3% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 52.3% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 45.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.8% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.8% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 9.0%CMS range 6.2–14.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.91 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 140 beds and averages 90.1 residents a day — about 64% occupied, or roughly 50 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.89 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.69 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.13 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.04 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.24 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.89 to 0.20 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 31% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2024-05-22 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and the facility failed to develop, implement, and update a comprehensive person-centered care plan for 4 (Resident #85, Resident #90, Resident #31, and Resident #81) of 10 residents whose comprehensive care plans were reviewed. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure resident's falls were addressed appropriately in the care plan to prevent any further accidents and failed to follow the care plan related to falls. Findings include: A review of a facility policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, implemented on 04/2023, indicated, The comprehensive care plan will describe, at a minimum, the following: a. The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being . The comprehensive care plan will include measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the resident's needs as identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. The objectives will be utilized to monitor the residents' progress. Alternative interventions will be documented, as needed .…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2024-05-22 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
3. A review of the admission Record, indicated Resident #81 had diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinsonism, dementia with behavioral disturbance, repeated falls, anemia, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Signification Change MDS with an ARD of 04/02/2024, revealed Resident #81 had a BIMS score of 6 which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. A review of Resident #81's Comprehensive Care Plan revealed the resident was at risk for bleeding date initiated 10/24/2024, interventions included to administer antiplatelet medication as ordered; at risk for easily bruising or skin tears. Nurse to notify doctor of any new skin issues. The care plan did not include any intervention to protect skin. During an observation on 05/22/2024 at 8:36 AM, Resident #81 was sitting in a common area in a wheelchair, wearing a short sleeve shirt. Multiple reddened to purple discolorations to both forearms and tops of hands were observed. During a concurrent observation and interview on 05/22/2024 at 8:40 AM, CNA #16 confirmed Resident #81 had discolorations to both arms and tops of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-08-14 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure meals were prepared and served according to the planned written menu to meet the nutritional needs of the residents for one meal observed. The findings include: During an observation on 08/11/2025 at 5:55 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #5 used a #8 scoop, which was equal to 1/2 cup, to serve a single portion of regular shepherd's pie to the residents who received regular diets, and the residents who received mechanical soft diets, instead of 3/4 cup as per the menu. CNA #5 confirmed she should have used a 6-ounce scoop, which would have been equal to 3/4 cup, to serve the shepherd's pie to the residents on regular and mechanical diets. During a concurrent observation and interview on 08/11/2025 at 5:56 PM, CNA #5 used a #8 scoop, which was equal to 1/2 cup, to serve a single portion of pureed shepherd's pie to the residents who received pureed diets, instead of two #10 scoops, to equal to 2/3 cup as per the menu. CNA #5 stated that she should have served two #10 scoops of shepherd's pie…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-08-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure food items stored in the refrigerator, freezer, and the dry food storage area were covered or sealed to prevent potential food born illnesses; expired food items were promptly removed and discarded on or before the expiration date; and dietary staff washed their hands, before handling clean equipment or food items for one of one meal observed. The findings include: During a concurrent observation and interview on 08/11/2025 at 10:12 AM, this surveyor observed the following in the walk-in refrigerator: a. An opened and unsealed bag of burritos was on a shelf, which exposed it to cross contamination. The Dietary Manager (DM) confirmed the bag was not sealed, so she would throw it away. b. A box that contained 10 packages of bologna was on a shelf, with an expiration date of 07/10/2025. The DM acknowledged the expired meat items, so she would throw them away. c. Two containers of tuna salad were on a shelf, with an expiration date of 08/09/2025. The DM acknowledged the expired tuna salads and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-05-22 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, it was determined the facility failed to notify the resident and the resident's representative in writing of a transfer to the hospital and failed to ensure the transfer notice had all required information regarding the transfer for 4 (Resident #31, Resident #26, Resident #85, and Resident #90) of 5 sampled resident reviewed for hospitalization. Findings include: A review of a facility policy titled, Transfer and Discharge (including AMA), implemented on01/2024, indicated, The facility's transfer/discharge notice will be provided to the resident and resident's representative in a language and manner in which they can understand. The notice will include all of the following at the time it is provided: a. The specific reason and basis for transfer and discharge. b. The effective date of transfer or discharge. c. The specific location .to which the resident is to be transferred or discharged . d. An explanation of the right to appeal the transfer or discharge to the State. e. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-05-22 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure PRN orders for psychotropic drugs were limited to 14 days, for two (Resident #9 and #70) of three residents reviewed for psychotropic medications. Specifically, the facility failed to include a duration for an as-needed (PRN) psychotropic medication. These failures affected residents who received psychotropic medications and increased the risk of unnecessary medication administration, adverse reactions, and unwanted side effects of the medications. Findings included: 1. Review of an admission Record dated [DATE] for Resident #9 reflected a [AGE] year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, and anxiety disorder. Observation on [DATE] during initial rounds between 9:00 AM and 11:30 AM revealed Resident #9 in bed, sleeping. Observation on [DATE] at approximately 9:00 am, when interviewed, Resident #9 did not answer questions appropriate to the conversation. Review of an Annual…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-22 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for one (Resident #9) of four residents reviewed for assessment. Specifically, Resident #9's Quarterly MDS assessment indicated the resident had an ostomy. The resident did not have an ostomy. Findings included: Review of an admission Record dated 05/22/2024 for Resident #9 reflected a [AGE] year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, constipation, and essential hypertension. Review of an Annual MDS Assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/14/2023 for Resident #9, Section H indicated there was no ostomy. Review of a Quarterly MDS Assessment with an ARD of 03/12/2024 for Resident #9, Section H indicated there was an ostomy. Section C indicated Resident #9 had a BIMS of 3, indicating impaired cognitive function. Interview on 05/22/2024 at 8:10 AM with Licensed practical Nurse (LPN) #1, revealed Resident #9 did…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-22 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure each resident received treatment and care in accordance with the comprehensive person-centered care plan for one (Resident #6) of three residents reviewed. Specifically, the facility did not document blood pressures before administration of a blood pressure lowering medication with hold parameters. These failures had the potential to cause residents to experience unwanted side effects of medications such as lightheadedness, dizziness, and falls causing major injuries. Findings included: Review of Resident #6's admission Record dated 05/22/2024 reflected an admission date of 05/10/2023 with diagnoses including essential hypertension, history of transient ischemic attack (mini-stroke), muscle weakness and unsteadiness on feet. Observation on 05/21/2024 at 1:00 PM revealed Resident #6 was in bed, sleeping. Resident #6 did not speak to the Surveyor. Review of Resident #6's Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-04-06 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food stored in the freezer was covered and/or sealed to prevent potential contamination or freezer burn and failed to ensure dietary staff washed their hands between dirty and clean tasks and before handling clean equipment to prevent potential food borne illness for residents who received meals from 1 of 1 kitchen. These failed practices had the potential to affect 100 residents who received meals from the kitchen (total census: 103), as documented on a list provided by the Dietary Supervisor on 04/04/23. The findings are: 1. On 4/03/23 at 12:50 PM the following food items were on a shelf in the walk-in freezer: a. One opened box of corn dogs was not covered or sealed. b. One opened box of polish sausage was not covered or sealed. c. One opened box of beef steak fingers was not covered or sealed. d. One opened box of sopapillas dough was not covered or sealed. 2. On 04/03/23 at 3:39 PM, Dietary Employee (DE) #1 turned on the 3 compartment sink and washed the blender bowl, the blade and the lid. He sanitized each and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-04-06 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to address the care and monitoring required related to respiratory therapy for 3 (Residents #1, #65 and #70) of 30 (Residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #10, #11, #16, #17, #22, #29, #31, #33, #37, #40, #44, #48, #52, #59, #63, #65, #70, #75, #78, #80, #82, #87, #90, #97, #252 and #302) sampled residents who received respiratory therapy. This failed practice had the potential to affect 102 residents with physician's orders for oxygen. The findings are: 1. Resident #1 had diagnoses of Acute and Chronic Respiratory Failure with Hypercapnia, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) with (Acute) Exacerbation and Acute and Chronic Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/19/23 documented the resident scored 14 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact) on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and did not receive oxygen…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-04-06 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and Nebulizer/Updraft supplies were properly stored to prevent contamination while not in use for 3 (Residents #65, #70 and #78) of 14 (Residents #1, #4, #10, #11, #17, #31, #33, #40, #48, #65, #70, #75, #78 and #82) sampled residents and failed to ensure oxygen usage was properly documented on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for 1 (Resident #1) of 30 (Residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #10, #11, #16, #17, #22, #29, #31, #33, #37, #40, #44, #48, #52, #59, #63, #65, #70, #75, #78, #80, #82, #87, #90, #97, #252, and #302) sampled residents who had Physician Orders for oxygen therapy. The findings are: 1. Resident #1 had diagnoses of Acute and Chronic Respiratory Failure with Hypercapnia, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) with (Acute) Exacerbation and Acute and Chronic Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/19/23 documented the resident scored 14 (13-15 indicates…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-04-06 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the pureed and regular diets were prepared and served as per the planned written menu to meet the nutritional needs of the residents for 2 of 2 meals observed. This failed practice had the potential to affect 12 residents who received a pureed diet and 78 residents who received a regular diet according to the list provided by the Dietary Supervisor 04/04/23 at 7:55 AM. The findings are: 1. On 04/03/23, the lunch menu provided by the Dietary Supervisor documented residents on a regular diet were to receive 3 ounces of baked ham. 2. On 04/03/23 at 12:57 PM, 22 residents on Aspen Hall, 30 residents on Magnolia Hall and 26 residents on [NAME] Hall were served a small piece of sliced ham each. At 1:17 PM, the Surveyor asked the Dietary Supervisor to weigh the same amount of ham served to the residents who received regular diets on the Aspen Hall, Magnolia Hall, and [NAME] Hall. She did and it weighed 1.5 ounces, instead of 3 ounces. 3. On 04/03/23, the supper menu documented 2 enchiladas were to be served…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-04-06 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure pureed food items were blended to a smooth, lump-free consistency to minimize the risk of choking or other complications for residents who required pureed diets for 1 of 2 meals observed. This failed practice had the potential to affect 12 residents who received a pureed diet as documented on a list provided by the Dietary Supervisor on 04/04/23. The findings are: 1. On 04/03/23 at 12:14 PM, and at 12:20 PM, the following were on the steam table in the Magnolia Hall kitchen and in Aspen Hall kitchen: a. 3 pans of pureed ham, the meat was gritty with ground pieces of the burnt ham visible. b. A pan of pureed great northern beans, the consistency was lumpy and was not smooth. c. A pan of pureed spinach, the consistency of the pureed spinach was runny. d. A pan of pureed bread, the consistency of the pureed bread was lumpy and was not smooth, e. On 04/03/23 at 12:16 PM, the Surveyor asked Homemaker #1 to describe the consistency of the pureed food items on the steam table. She stated, Pureed ham was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$12,695 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $12,695 — penalty dated 2024-05-22
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| HERRON, LAURIE | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 12/31/2021 |
| BROCK, ROBIN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2003 |
| TEBBETTS, TERRELL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/1992 |
| WANN, PAUL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2001 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in AR
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Arkansas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 045317. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-14, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.