White River Healthcare
1569 Ar Highway 56, Calico Rock, AR 72519 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 70 certified beds · (870) 297-3719 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0570)
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- it did not file the payroll staffing data CMS requires — its 1 of 5 staffing rating is the rating CMS assigns for not reporting, not a measure of how many nurses are on the floor
- 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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 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 fell from 4 to 3 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 | 21.8% | 9.5% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.6% | 4.3% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 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 | 0.0% | 1.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 5.0% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 23.4% | 10.1% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.9% | 21.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 14.0% | 4.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.3% | 13.5% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.0% | 10.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 11.5% | 1.3% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 84.6% | 77.7% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.9% | 24.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.8% | 12.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.71 | 2.01 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 5.17 | 2.13 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ 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.
43.9% 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 29 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 41.7% 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 24 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.
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 | 43.9%CMS range 31.3–58.0 | 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 | 13.7%CMS range 8.6–19.4 | 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 | 41.7% | 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 | 50.0% | 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 | 33.3% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 7.1% | 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 | 7.4%CMS range 3.9–15.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.29 | 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
No payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours are on file for this home — and the record suggests that is because it did not report them. CMS rates its staffing 1 of 5, which is the rating CMS assigns when a home does not report. Every Medicare-certified nursing home is required to submit its actual payroll data quarterly, and that submission is what makes staffing numbers auditable rather than a claim. A home that does not file is not the same as a home with no data yet: ask this home directly what its nurse-to-resident ratios and weekend RN coverage are, why its payroll data is not filed, and weigh the independent health-inspection score heavily in the meantime.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-11-21 · 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
Through observation, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that equipment was in a clean, safe, useable condition and food was stored in a safe and sanitary manner. The findings are: During an observation on 11/19/2024 at 6:20AM, 20 small bowls were placed in a pan on the steam table serving side up without a covering. During an observation on 11/19/2024 at 6:32AM, Refrigerator #2 ' s left, and right door seals held a brownish color with dark brown and black spots along the inside seals. During an observation on 11/19/2024 at 6:33AM, Refrigerator #3 ' s left, and right door seals held a brownish color with dark brown and black spots along the inside seals. The seal contained a purplish discoloration of the seal. During an interview on 11/19/2024 at 6:34AM, the Dietary Manager stated the purplish discoloration was from chemicals used to clean the seals of the brownish color with the dark brown and black spots. Cleaning was unable to remove the unknown substance. The seals look dirty, like there is mold on the seals. The concern is cross contamination from not…
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 before2024-11-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene was performed between residents, failed to ensure cleaning of personal equipment (fan) to prevent contamination and failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) were followed for a tube fed resident (Resident #7) of 1 resident reviewed for infection prevention and control. Findings include: A review of a facility policy titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, revised in August 2019, indicated the primary purpose of hand hygiene was to prevent the spread of infections and that all personnel will follow the hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to others. A review of a facility policy titled Policies and Practices-Infection Control, revised in October, 2018, indicated the objectives for infection control policies were to maintain a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment; prevent, detect and investigate and control infections; implementing isolation precautions when necessary;…
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 · D2024-11-21 · tag F0623 — isolatedProvide 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
Based on record review and record interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident/representative or Power of Attorney (POA) in writing of the resident's transfer/discharge to the hospital as required for Resident #5 of 1 resident reviewed for the process of notification at time of transfer/discharge. Findings include: A review of a facility policy titled, Transfer or Discharge Notice, revised in December 2016, made no indication of notifying the resident/representative or POA. The policy indicated that a written notice would be sent in the event of an impending transfer or discharge within 30 days. A review of Resident #5 ' s admission Record, indicated the facility admitted Resident #5 with diagnoses that included congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, stage 3 chronic kidney disease and a personal history of urinary tract infections. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/06/2024, revealed Resident #5 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 which indicated Resident #5 had…
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 · D2024-11-21 · tag F0625 — isolatedNotify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify resident representatives or Power of Attorney (POA) in writing of the bed hold policy upon a resident's transfer to the hospital and/or discharge as required for 1 (Resident #5) of 1 resident reviewed for bed hold notification. Findings include: A review of a facility policy titled, Transfer or Discharge Notice, revised in December 2016 made no indication of notifying the resident/representative or POA. The policy indicated that a written notice would be sent in the event of an impending transfer or discharge within 30 days. A review of Resident #5 ' sadmission Record, indicated the facility admitted Resident #5 with diagnoses that included congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, stage 3 chronic kidney disease, and a personal history of urinary tract infections. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/06/2024, revealed Resident #5 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 which indicated Resident #5 had severe cognitive…
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 · D2024-11-21 · 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
Through observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure one of one resident sampled (Resident #31) environment remained free of accident hazards as was possible. The findings are: Record review of quarterly Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date of 09/10/2024, revealed for Section C, Cognitive Patterns, Resident #31 showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status of 15. Record review of Resident # 31 ' s admission Record showed two Power of Attorneys for Care Conference. Record review of a Care Plan dated 9/10/2024, did not have documentation to support Resident # 31 to self-administer medicine. During an observation on 11/18/2024 at 11:05AM, in Resident # 31 ' s room a bottle of nasal spray was on rolling bedside table, while cough drops and wound cleanser were on the dresser. During an interview on 11/18/2024 at 11:09AM, LPN #1 confirmed wound cleanser should not be in Resident # 31 ' s room. LPN #1 stated she did not know where the nose spray or cough drops came from and should not be in Resident # 31 ' s room either. During an interview on…
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 · D2024-11-21 · tag F0801 — isolatedEmploy sufficient staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service, including a qualified dietician.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Through investigation and record review the facility failed to employ staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service. The findings are: During an investigation on 11/19/2024 at 7:43AM, the Dietary Manager confirmed classes have not been started for dietary certification. During an investigation on 11/21/2024 at 9:02AM, the Administrator confirmed the Dietary Manager took position on 12/31/2022. Facility was working on Dietary Manager to be enrolled in a program, paperwork had not been finished. Review of an email dated 08/8/2024 at 7:00AM, from Dietary Consultant provided a list of online programs to the Dietary Manager and the Administrator.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-21 · tag F0848 — isolatedProvide a neutral and fair arbitration process and agree to arbitrator and venue.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Through record review, interviews and policy of arbitration agreement the facility failed to ensure that four of four residents sampled for arbitration agreements (Resident #7, #13,#16 and #22) or representative were clearly informed that arbitration is to be a neutral site that both parties agree to The findings are: Review of arbitration agreements signed by Resident #7, Resident #13, Resident #16, and Resident #22 with the current arbitration agreement in use, failed to provide the resident or the resident's representative notice of the fact that both parties must agree to a neutral place. During an interview on 11/20/24 at 1:30PM, the Social Director confirmed there was not anything about a neutral meeting place stated in the contracts. During an interview on 11/20/24 at 1:47PM, the Administrator stated the facility may have left something out.
- Potential for harm · E2023-11-09 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide 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 Activities of Daily Living were maintained to prevent the potential for injury, infection, and to promote personal hygiene and sense of wellbeing for 3 sampled residents (Resident #15, #22, and #25). This failed practice had the potential to affect 6 case mix residents from halls 100 and 200 dependent for ADL/Nail Care based on a list provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 11/8/23 at 11:45 AM. The findings are: 1. Resident #15 had diagnoses of flaccid hemiplegia affecting left nondominant side, cerebral infarction due to embolism of left middle cerebral artery, dysphagia following cerebral infarction, and other specified diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, unspecified. A Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment review date of 8/24/23 documented a Staff Assessment for Mental Status (SAMS) for, Cognitive skills for daily decision making Severely Impaired requiring extensive assistance with 2- person physical support for…
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 before2023-11-09 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 and interview the facility failed to ensure that standard and transmission-based precautions of sanitizing, handwashing, and or donning gloves between residents during morning medication pass were followed to prevent the possible spread of infections. This failed practice had the potential to affect 26 residents administered medications during morning medication pass based on a list provided by the Director of Nursing on 11/9/23 at 915 AM. The findings are: 1. On 11/08/23 at 8:05 AM, the Surveyor observed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 standing at the medication cart in hall 200. The LPN #1 had prepared by mouth and liquid medications that were sitting on top of medication cart. The Surveyor accompanied LPN #1 into room [ROOM NUMBER] and observed medication administration of medications and leave the room without washing hands or sanitizing. 2. On 11/08/23 at 8:11 AM, LPN #1 prepared medications in hallway 100 at the medication cart for the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER]-A without…
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 · D2023-11-09 · tag F0570 — isolatedAssure the security of all personal funds of residents deposited with the facility.
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 ensure a Surety Bond was current and up to date, to assure the security of all personal funds in the resident trust funds to prevent financial loss. The failed practice had the potential to affect the 40 residents who had a trust fund account managed by the facility according to a list provided by the Business Office Manager [BOM] on [DATE] at 10:10 am. The finding are: 1. On [DATE] at 10:10 am, a review of Trust - Current Account Balance dated [DATE] showed an ending balance of $18,101.16. 2. A Surety Bond provided by [Company Name] provided by the BOM on [DATE] at 10:10 am. The document had an original effective date of [DATE] and was issued by [Company Name] as Surety, in the amount for $35,000. The bond documented .In witness whereof, the said [SURETY COMPANY] has caused these presents to be execute by .with the corporate seal affixed this 19th day of [DATE]. The Rider attached documented .This rider became effective on the 19th day of July, 2019 .…
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 · D2023-11-09 · 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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan to address the need for oxygen for 1 (Resident #20) sampled resident. The findings are: Resident #20 had a diagnosis [dx] of congestive heart failure. On admission MDS with Assessment Reference Date [ARD] 8/22/23. a. Review of the resident's care plan on 11/07/23 at 3:13 pm did not address the potential need for oxygen as identified in the physician's order dated 10/31/23. b. Review of the physician order dated 10/31/23 showed resident #20 to have oxygen at 2 liters as needed to maintain oxygen saturation above 90%. b. On 11/08/23 at 10:45 AM, the surveyor Interviewed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #1). Surveyor asked what the order was for resident's oxygen. LPN#1 answered, The resident physician order is for 2 liters per minute. c. During interview on 11/09/23 at 1:59 PM, the MDS Coordinator reported that they are responsible for completing the MDS and the care plans for the residents in LTC. MDS Coordinator was asked what the possible complications are of not…
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 · D2023-11-09 · 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 observations, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that physicians orders were followed for oxygen flow rates for 2 sampled residents (Resident #20 and #22) receiving oxygen therapy. This failed practice had the potential to affect 3 sampled residents on halls 100 and 200 based on a list of residents with orders for oxygen therapy provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 11/8/23 at 11:45 AM. The Findings are: 1. Resident #20 had diagnoses of chronic combined systolic (congestive) and diastolic (congestive) heart failure. A Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 9 (8-12 moderate cognitive impairment) requiring extensive assistance with toileting with 1-person physical assist, and minimum assistance for bed mobility and transfers with 1-person physical assist and support. a. A Care Plan initiated 8/22/23 documented no oxygen/respiratory status goals or interventions. b. A Physician's order dated 10/31/23 documented, PRN…
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 before2022-08-12 · 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 dishware is stored in a clean location, not exposed to dust, dietary equipment is cleaned and maintained in good working condition, and nutritional supplements are dated with a use by date in the nourishment refrigerator to minimize the potential for food borne illness for residents who receive meals from the kitchen. The failed practice had the potential to affect 49 residents who receive meals from the kitchen and nourishment room refrigerator as documented on a list provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/11/22. The findings are: a. On 08/08/22 at 10:48 AM, there were fuzzy translucent particles on the wall behind a rack with disposable foam cups, and clean plastic coffee mugs stored on it. b. On 08/08/22 at 10:50 AM, the hood vents above the stoves were covered with gritty, brownish buildup. The Surveyor asked the Dietary Manager to turn on the hood lights. She said, They don't work. The sticker posted on the hood reflected the last professional cleaning was completed April 2021. The Surveyor asked 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 · E2022-08-12 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 a bruise of unknown origin was investigated, reported to the Office of Long-Term Care and other state agencies in accordance with state law for 1 of 1 (Resident #6) who had bruising observed on 08/08/22 during survey initial rounds. This finding had the potential to affect all 50 Residents that reside at the facility based on the list provided by the DON (Director of Nursing) on 08/08/22. The findings are: 1. Resident #6 had diagnoses of Unspecified Dementia, Muscle Wasting and Atrophy. A Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/04/22 documented the resident scored 3 (Severely impaired) on a Staff Assessment for Mental Status (SAMS) and required extensive assistance of one to two staff for bed mobility, dressing, toileting, personal hygiene, transfers, locomotion, eating and total dependence for bathing. a. On 08/08/22 at 11:41 AM, Resident #6 was lying in bed with blanket up to chest,…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HUDSON HOLDING COMPANY, INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/13/2012 |
| HUDSON, LUCAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 3 rows in the source record cover these 2 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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.
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 045401. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-11-21, 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.