Nightingale At Stonegate
118 Jerry Selby Drive, Crossett, AR 71635 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 76 certified beds · (870) 364-1534 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — 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
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (35% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 4 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 | 3.6% | 9.5% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.0% | 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 | 1.0% | 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 | 5.5% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.6% | 10.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.9% | 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 | 7.5% | 4.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 3.7% | 13.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.3% | 10.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.1% | 77.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 19.3% | 24.1% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 18.3% | 12.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.30 | 2.01 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.55 | 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.
45.8% 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 72 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 67.7% 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 34 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 0.18 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 18% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 43% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. 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 | 45.8%CMS range 36.3–55.2 | 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 | 11.6%CMS range 8.8–16.1 | 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 | 67.7% | 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 | 52.9% | 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 | 55.9% | 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 | 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 | 6.0% | 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 | 7.5%CMS range 4.1–13.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.08 | 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 76 beds and averages 58.6 residents a day — about 77% occupied, or roughly 17 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 2.94 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.62 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.66 is below 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 2.45 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.13 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.61 to 0.64 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 35% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2025-07-24 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
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, record, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure housekeeping and maintenance provided a safe, sanitary, comfortable environment for the residents who reside in the facility. This failed practice has the potential to affect 38 of 59 residents living in the facility. The findings include: Halls 100 and 300 During an observation on 07/21/2025 at 2:17 PM, in the Shower Room on the 300 hall, it was observed to have dried, brown substance and a black ring around in the toilet bowl; the smaller shower chair had clusters of black spots on all four legs, the back of the chair, under the chair and on the back mesh of the seat. Orange, brown, and white residue noted on the mesh of the seat. A strap on the chair was observed to have black, orange, brown, grey and white residues on the clasp and along the length of the strap. The larger shower chair also had black spotted residue on the back of the chair and legs and orange, brown, grey and white residue on the seat back 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 · E2024-04-12 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
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 treat each resident with respect and dignity, and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for 3 (Residents #7, #10, #50) sampled residents. The findings are: 1. Resident #7 had diagnoses of Intervertebral disc degeneration lumbar region and Gastro-esophageal reflux disease. According to a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/18/2024, Resident #7 scored 09 (8-12 indicates moderately impaired cognition) on a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS). The care plan documented that Resident #7 needed assistance with spoon feeding for all meals. Resident is to be up for all meals. 2. Resident #50 had diagnoses of Dementia and muscle weakness. According to a Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 02/27/2024 Resident #50 scored 13 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact) on a BIMS. The care plan documented that Resident #50 required assistance with eating. 3. 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 · E2024-04-12 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 care plans were reviewed and revised at least quarterly and/or when residents' care needs changed, as evidence by failure to revise the plan of care to address an indwelling urinary catheter and dementia care, to ensure staff were aware of the necessary care, assessments and services required for 1 (Resident #15) of 1 sampled resident who had an indwelling catheter and 1 (Resident #6) of 3 sampled residents whose care plans were reviewed for dementia care. The findings are: 1. Resident #6 had a diagnosis of dementia as documented in an Order Summary Report. a. An Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/12/2024 documented Resident #6 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6 (00-07 indicates severe cognitive impairment) and an active diagnosis of non-Alzheimer ' s dementia. b. A Care Plan revised on 03/14/2024 had no documented interventions regarding Dementia Care. c. On 04/12/2024 at 02:31 PM,…
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 · E2024-04-12 · 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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure food items stored in the refrigerator and freezer were covered, sealed and dated to minimize the potential for food borne illness for residents who received meals from 1 of 1 kitchen; 1 of 1 ice machine was maintained in clean and sanitary condition to prevent contamination of airborne particles; baseboard was secured, wall were free of chips, stains and rust and were maintained in clean sanitary conditions, and dietary staff. washed their hands before handling clean. equipment or food items to prevent potential food borne illness for residents who received meals from 1 of 1 kitchen; These failed practices had the potential to affect 55 residents who received. meals from the kitchen, (total census: 56). The findings are: 1. On 04/09/2024 at 09:59 AM, an opened box of biscuits was on a shelf in the freezer. The box was not covered, and was not completely sealed, exposing it to cross contamination. There was no date on the box to indicate when it was opened. 2. On 04/09/2024 at 10:09 AM, the following observations were…
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 · D2024-04-12 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident and or resident representative and the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman were provided written documentation regarding a transfer to the hospital for 1 (Resident #21) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for transfer / discharge to the hospital. The findings are: Resident #21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] as documented on a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/21/2024. Resident #21 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6 (00-07 indicates severely impaired). a. A Progress Note dated 01/13/2024 at 8:16 AM documented, .resident noted to be vomiting dark brown emesis with foul odor noted .received orders to send resident to [local hospital] ER [Emergency Room] for further eval/tx [evaluation / treatment]. resident transferred via [by way of] [ambulance service] . b. On 04/11/2024 at 06:00 AM, Resident #21's electronic health record was reviewed and there was no…
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 · D2024-04-12 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident and/or resident representative was provided a copy of a bed hold policy after a transfer to the hospital for 1 (Resident #21) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for bed-hold policy notification. The findings are: 1. Resident #21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] as documented on a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/21/2024. Resident #21 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6 (00-07 indicates severe cognitive impairment). a. A Progress Note dated 01/13/2024 at 08:16 AM documented, .resident noted to be vomiting dark brown emesis with foul odor noted .received orders to send resident to [local hospital] ER [Emergency Room] for further eval/tx [evaluation / treatment]. resident transferred via [by way of] [ambulance service] . b. On 04/11/2024 at 06:00 AM, Resident #21's electronic health record was reviewed and there was no documentation regarding a bed hold notification…
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 · D2024-04-12 · 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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure nail care was consistently provided to promote good grooming and personal hygiene for 1 (Resident #54) of 1 sampled resident who required staff assistance with nail care. The findings are: 1. Resident #54 had diagnoses of reduced mobility and muscle wasting, as documented in an Order Summary Report. a. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/26/2024 documented Resident #54 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 (08-12 indicates moderately cognitive impaired) and had an impairment in range of motion on one side in an upper extremity which included the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand. b. A Care Plan dated 03/06/2024 documented Resident #54 had a deficiency in performing Activities of Daily Living (ADL) due to a Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA), also known as a Stroke, required extensive care with personal hygiene and nail length was to be checked, trimmed, and cleaned on bath day and as necessary. c. On 04/09/2024 at 01:50 PM, Resident #54 said…
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 · D2024-04-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
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 that staff used proper hand hygiene when assisting residents during meal service to prevent spread of bacteria, viruses, and/or infections. This failed practice had the potential to affect 2 (Residents #7, #50) sampled residents residing in the facility requiring assistance with meal service. The findings are: On 04/09/2024 at 12:11 PM, the Surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 positioning Resident #7 to an upright position in a Geri-chair (a type of chair that is useful for those with mobility issues and can also be used for bedridden patients who have difficulty sitting upright in a conventional wheelchair). CAN #1 did not sanitize/wash hands after contact with Resident #7. CNA #1 picked up silverware from the table and initiated meal assistance for Resident #50. CNA #1 placed a napkin over Resident #7 shirt, tucking the napkin in the Resident's shirt (encountering Resident's skin) and did not wash/sanitize hands. CNA #1 took silverware from Resident #50's hand, who was attempting to…
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 · D2023-04-20 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the admission Evaluation accurately assessed 1 (Resident #100) of 1 sampled resident whose admission Evaluation was reviewed for the use of psychotropic medications and smoking. The findings are: Resident #100 was admitted on [DATE] and had diagnoses of Atherosclerosis of Coronary Artery, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Primary Hypertension. The Medicare 5 Day Minimum Data Set (MDS). was still in progress. As documented on a list provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 04/20/23 at 11:23 AM, Resident #100 smoked. a. The Physician orders dated 04/06/23 documented, .risperiDONE Oral Tablet 1 MG (Risperidone) Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for Delirium for 30 Days . b. The admission Evaluation dated 04/06/23 documented, .2. Medications .D. Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) 1. Does the resident/elder receive ANY psychotropic medications such as antipsychotics, antidepressants, antianxiety, sedatives or hypnotics? b. No…
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 · D2023-04-20 · 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
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident #12) of 2 (Residents #12 and #100) sampled residents who smoked as documented on a list provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 04/20/23 at 11:23 AM, was supervised while smoking to prevent potential accidents. The findings are: 1. Resident #12 had diagnoses of Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following unspecified Cerebrovascular Disease Affecting Unspecified Side and Muscle Weakness and Unspecified Lack of Coordination. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/07/23 documented the resident scored 14 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact) on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and was independent with set up help only with locomotion on the unit. a. A Smoking - Safety Screen dated 12/05/22, provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 04/19/23 at 11:11 AM documented, .E. SAFETY 6. Can resident light own cigarette? No . 7. RESIDENT NEED FOR ADAPTIVE EQUIPMENT 7a. Smoking apron . 7c. Supervision . 8. Does resident need facility to store lighter…
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 · D2023-04-20 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 300 Hall medication cart was locked when out of the nurse's line of vision to keep medications and biologicals securely stored and to prevent potential access by residents or visitors. This failed practice had the potential to affect 14 self-mobile residents who resided on the 300 Hall as documented on a list provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 04/20/23 at 11:20 AM. The findings are: 1. On 04/20/23 at 8:17 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 was on the 300 Hall preparing mediations outside of a resident's room. LPN #1 entered the resident's room leaving the medication cart facing the hall unlocked. No other facility staff was in sight. The Surveyor was standing beside the cart and observed 3 residents in manual wheelchairs come within reach of the medication cart. The medication cart was unlocked and not supervised, and accessible to residents on the 300 Hall for 7 minutes. 2. On 04/20/23 at 8:24 AM, when LPN #1 came out of the resident's room, the Surveyor asked, Should your medication cart be locked when…
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.
- No harm found · C2025-07-24 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to post the resident census on a daily basis. A review of a Daily Staffing Log dated 07/23/2025 revealed the census was not provided or posted. A review of a Daily Staffing Log, dated June 2025, revealed the allotted area to display the census was not completed for the month of June. During an interview on 07/24/2025 at 12:28 PM, the Business Office Manager (BOM) stated she had been in the role for over a year and was responsible for maintaining the Daily Staffing Logs. She verified there was no place in the facility where the census was posted and available for viewing. The BOM also verified the respective information had not been completed on the Daily Staffing Logs since she began the role as the BOM. During an interview on 07/24/2025 at 1:43 PM, the Administrator stated she was responsible for ensuring the BOM completed the Daily Staffing logs. The Administrator also stated there was not another area where the census was posted.
- 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 NIGHTINGALE — 5 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 | 5 of 5 | 4.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 4.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARDJ LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 33% | since 03/31/2022 |
| CUTLASS OP HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/24/2025 |
| CUTLASS OP FAMILY TRUST II | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 23% | since 08/31/2022 |
| SRI FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 11% | since 03/31/2022 |
| BRAUN, DOV | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 23% | since 08/31/2022 |
| ISAAC, STEVEN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 11% | since 08/31/2022 |
| BRAUN, AVIVA | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 08/31/2022 |
| INDEPENDENCE ARKANSAS HCM LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/16/2026 |
| HENSLEY, LISA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/31/2022 |
| SIMON, TIM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2022 |
| SRI NIGHTINGALE LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/31/2022 |
| STONEGATE REALTY HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2022 |
| JAKOBOWITCH, DAVID | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/31/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 13 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
7 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.
About 72% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $776K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% 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.
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 045437. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-24, 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.