Heartland Rehabilitation And Care Center
19701 Interstate 30, Benton, AR 72015 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 140 certified beds · (501) 778-8200 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)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0569)
- about 60% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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 2 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 | 4.6% | 9.5% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.7% | 4.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.2% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.9% | 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 | 2.6% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.4% | 10.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 25.2% | 21.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.6% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.1% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.9% | 13.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.6% | 10.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.5% | 77.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 14.2% | 24.1% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 6.0% | 12.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.25 | 2.01 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.01 | 2.13 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
55.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 57 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 77.3% 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 44 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 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 13% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% 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 | 55.1%CMS range 47.2–65.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.9%CMS range 7.2–16.6 | 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 | 77.3% | 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 | 68.2% | 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 | 59.1% | 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 | 94.3% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 1.9% | 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 | 6.8%CMS range 2.8–12.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.81 | 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 90.3 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 3.71 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.34 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.49 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 3.31 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.87 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.31 to 0.40 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 51% is about the same as 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-07-31 · 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 dietary staff washed their hands between dirty and clean tasks, and before handling clean equipment for one of two meals observed. The findings include: During a concurrent observation and interview on 07/30/2025 at 8:51 AM, this surveyor observed Dietary Aide (DA) #1 push a cart of pitchers without gloves on, which contaminated her hands. Without washing her hands, DA #1 picked up a coffee bag and placed it into the coffee basket to prepare coffee for the residents for lunch. This surveyor asked DA #1 what she should have done after touching dirty objects and before handling clean equipment. DA #1 stated she should have washed her hands. During a concurrent observation and interview on 07/30/2025 at 9:54 AM, this surveyor observed DA #2 lift the trash can lid and throw away tissue paper without gloves on, which contaminated her hands. Without washing her hands, DA #2 picked up a bag of tea and placed it into a brew basket to brew and serve to the residents for lunch. This surveyor asked DA #2…
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 before2024-04-25 · 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure foods stored in the freezer and dry storage area were covered, sealed, dated, and were stored in to prevent potential food borne illness for resident who received meals from 1 of 1 kitchen, expired food items were promptly removed from stock to prevent potential food borne illness for residents who received meal trays from 1 of 1 kitchens, and dietary staff washed their hands before handling clean equipment and food items to prevent potential food borne illness for residents. The failed practices had the potential to affect 66 residents who receive meals from the kitchen. The findings are: 1. On 04/24/2024 at 12:50 PM, the following items were noted on a shelf in the freezer, there were no dates of when the food items were received or when opened: a. An opened box of cheese omelets. The bag was not sealed or dated when opened. b. An opened box of egg patties. The box was not covered, sealed, or dated when opened. c. An opened box steak fingers. There was no open date on the box. d. An opened box 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 · E2024-04-25 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure mechanical closets to the electrical and air conditioning rooms were locked to prevent residents from entering. The facility failed to lock a private bathroom on 400 Hall that did not have a call light or pull cord light to allow residents to call for assistance which had the potential to affect 9 400-Hall residents that can ambulate or self-propel and failed to transfer residents in an appropriate manner to prevent falls or injuries. The findings are: 1. On 04/22/2024 at 09:59 AM, the Surveyor observed a door labeled Mechanical Room slightly ajar on the front, right hand side of 400 Hall. The Surveyor opened the door and observed air conditioning equipment, boxes on the floor, and a rolling cart of tools. The Surveyor exited the room and walked across the hall to another unlocked door labeled Mechanical Room with air conditioning and light equipment. 2. On 04/24/2024 at 01:40 PM, the Surveyor asked to speak with the Maintenance Supervisor, and he identified 400 Hall Mechanical Rooms as the air…
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 · E2024-04-25 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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 meals were served in a method that maintained the appearance pureed food items and of hot food product and at temperatures that were acceptable to the residents to improve palatability and encourage good nutritional intake during 2 of 2 meals observed. This failed practice had the potential to affect 19 residents who receive meal trays in their rooms on the 100- Hall, 5 residents who receive meal trays on the 200- Hall, 4 residents who receive meal trays in their room on the 300- Hall, 14 residents who receive meal trays on 400- Hall. The findings are: 1. Resident #18 had diagnoses of End stage renal disease, Malnutrition, and Metabolic encephalopathy. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/09/2024 documented that the resident scored 15 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). The care plan with a revision date of 03/18/2024 documented, .Problem: (Resident #18) has an ADL (Activities of Daily Living) self-care…
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 · D2024-04-25 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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, the facility failed to ensure residents received dental care to promote good hygiene and prevent nutritional and dental complications for 1 (Resident #14) sampled resident. This failed practice had the potential to affect 7 residents on 400-Hall that require complete dental assistance. The findings are: 1. Resident #14 had diagnoses of Cerebral infarction, Absence of right leg below the knee, and Type II diabetes mellitus with foot ulcer. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set [MDS] with an Assessment Reference Date [ARD] of 01/19/2024 indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status [BIMS] score of 15 (13-15 suggest cognitively intact). Resident #14 required maximum assistance for eating, oral hygiene, dressing and personal hygiene. Resident #14 is dependent for toileting and bathing. a. On 04/22/2024 at 11:43 AM, the Surveyor observed an off white, and a blue and white, toothbrush resting on the bathroom sink behind the faucet, and the blue and white brush is above 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 · D2024-04-25 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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, the facility failed to ensure ice packs were maintained in cooler bags at the bedside for residents on thickened liquids to ensure fluids were appetizing for the residents to help prevent dehydration and weight loss. This failed practice had the ability to affect two residents on 400-Hall on thickened liquids. The findings are: Resident #39 had diagnoses of Dysphagia, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and Dementia. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set [MDS] with an Assessment Reference Date [ARD] of 03/30/2024 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status [BIMS] score of 6 (0-7 suggest severe cognitive impairment). Resident #39 required set up assistance with meals. A Physician Orders (Dated, 07/20/2023) documented, .Super calorie diet Pureed texture, Nectar consistency . A Care Plan (Revised, 10/10/2023) documented, .[Resident #39] has difficulty swallowing related to dysphagia and at risk for weight loss. Ensure that resident receives nectar thickened liquids…
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 · Dcited before2024-04-25 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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, the facility failed to date humidifier bottles to ensure nursing staff changed humidifier bottles weekly to prevent respiratory infections. This failed practice had the potential to affect 2 residents living on 400 Hall using oxygen with humidifier bottles. The findings are: 1. Resident #59 had diagnoses of Cerebrovascular disease, Pressure ulcer of the sacral region, and Schizophrenia. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set [MDS] with an Assessment Reference Date [ARD] of 04/04/2024 indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status score [BIMS] of 14 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact). a. A Care Plan (Revision, 03/27/2024) documented, .administer oxygen as ordered, change all disposable respiratory equipment clean/replace filter every Sunday night shift and bag and date . b. On 04/22/2024 at 11:32 AM, the Surveyor observed Resident #59 receiving 2 liters of oxygen via nasal cannula and an undated humidifier bottle. c. On 04/23/2024 at 10:20 AM, the Surveyor observed…
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 · D2023-04-07 · tag F0569 — isolatedNotify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
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 record review and interview the facility failed to convey within 30 days the resident's funds, and a final accounting of those funds, to the resident, or in the case of death, the individual or probate jurisdiction administering the resident's estate, in accordance with State law, upon the death of 2 Residents (#125 and #126) who had personal funds deposited with the facility. The findings are: The Review of the Trust Account Documentation provided by the Business Office Manager (BOM) on 04/04/23 at 3:00 pm revealed that Resident #125 had a trust balance of $1723.61 and Resident #126 had a trust balance of $224.13. The Record Review completed on 04/04/23 at 3:30pm revealed that Resident #125 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had a Durable Power of Attorney signed and notarized on 07/23/20 on file with the facility. A document titled Record of Death stated that her date of death was 10/02/22. The Record Review completed on 04/04/23 at 3:45pm revealed that Resident #126 was admitted to 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 · Dcited before2023-04-07 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide 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 place signage on a resident's entry way to identify the use of Oxygen by the resident, for 1 (#226) of 6 (#11, #15, #33, #57, #63 and #226) sampled residents who received Supplemental Oxygen. The findings are: 1.Resident #226 had diagnoses of Malignant Neoplasm of transverse Colon, Malignant Neoplasm of Right Lung, and Malignant Neoplasm of Left Lung. The admission Minimal Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/27/23 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 (13-15 cognitively intact), required one person assist with bathing, personal hygiene, dressing, supervision with setup only for bed mobility, transfers, walk in room and corridors, locomotion on and off unit, eating and toilet use, and received supplemental oxygen. a. The Physician's Order dated 03/18/23 documented, .Oxygen at 2 Liters Per Milliliter [LPM] via nasal cannula as needed every shift b. The Physician's Order dated 03/19/23 documented, .Change all disposable respiratory equipment and clean/replace filters…
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 · D2023-04-07 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication and collaboration with the Dialysis Facility for 1 (Resident #17) reviewed for End Stage Renal Disease/Dialysis services, according to a list provided by Director of Nursing (DON) on 04/06/23. The findings are: 1. Resident #17 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of End Stage Renal Disease, Anxiety Disorder, Essential Hypertension, Anemia, And Dependence On Renal Dialysis. The Medicare Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/02/23 documented a score of 10 (8-12 indicates moderate impairment) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). Resident needs extensive assist of one person with toileting and eating and is totally dependent on 2 persons for transfers. a. During a review of Resident #17's Electronic Health Record (EHR) on 04/06/23 at 3:11 PM, the Surveyor was unable to locate any lab results in the record that had been completed in the Dialysis Unit or communication 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.
“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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to SOUTHERN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES — 35 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 3.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.9 | -0.9 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
The other 34 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.8★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4P2T1 OPS HOLDING LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 07/01/2020 |
| ALEXARK1 LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2022 |
| JEJ ASSETS LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2022 |
| JEJ MANAGEMENT, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2022 |
| PONTHIE, SHARLOT | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2022 |
| STROTHER, JOHN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 08/01/2023 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
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.
This home reported $5.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 60% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. 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, FY2023). 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 045199. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-31, 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.