Butterfield Trail Village
1923 East Joyce Blvd, Fayetteville, AR 72703 · Non profit - Corporation · 87 certified beds · (479) 695-8065 Medicare only — no Medicaid
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Mar 2025
- it has 3 actual-harm citations
- the CMS record shows $58,006 in federal fines (most recent 2025-03-06)
- nursing-staff turnover (68%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 3 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 | 4 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 | 16.9% | 9.5% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.0% | 4.3% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.1% | 0.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.7% | 1.2% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 7.4% | 1.4% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 8.3% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.9% | 10.1% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 25.8% | 21.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.8% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.8% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 16.4% | 13.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 3.2% | 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 | 62.1% | 77.7% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 43.0% | 24.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.1% | 12.5% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.93 | 2.01 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.60 | 2.13 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
39.0% 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 30 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.40 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 69% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 39.0%CMS range 26.8–54.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.3%CMS range 6.3–15.8 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 0.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.45 | 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 87 beds and averages 40.8 residents a day — about 47% occupied, or roughly 46 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 5.98 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.85 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.96 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 5.08 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.34 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.96 to 0.58 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 68% is well above the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · H2025-03-06 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — patternEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
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, interviews, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to identify, assess, and evaluate the nursing staff's knowledge, skill level, and ability to provide emergent care in life threating situations or maintain and utilize available emergency medical equipment when reviewed for competently skilled nursing services. The findings include: A review of the facility's Facility Assessment updated [DATE] and last reviewed with the QAA (Quality Assessment & Assurance)/QAPI (Quality Assurance & Performance Improvement) committee [DATE], revealed, the persons identified in completing the assessment were the Senior Director of Healthcare Services, the Administrator, the Director of Nursing, and the Medical Director. Part 1: Our Resident Profile- The intent was to identify common diagnoses in the resident population in order to identify the types of human and material resources necessary to meet the needs of the resident's living…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2024-11-20 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record review, facility document review, facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to a resident was free from a significant medication error for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for medication administration. Findings include: A review of a facility policy titled, Documentation of Medication Administration, revised in April 2007, indicated, all medications administered to a resident should be documented on the resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR) immediately after (never before) it is given with the signature and title of the person administering the medication. A review of a facility policy Medication Record for 08/2024, revealed Resident #1 had an order for an anticonvulsant to be given at 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM which was started on 12/18/2022. The 08/25/2024 8:00 AM dose was signed off by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3. The 08/27/2024 6:00 PM dose was not signed of as administered. A review of Resident #1's anticonvulsant medication's page in the facility's narcotic book revealed, on 08/25/2024 no medication was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2023-05-26 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to identify the risk of side rail entrapment which resulted in actual harm for 1 (Resident #7) of 37 (Residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #25, #26, #27, #29, #30, #32, #33, #34, #35, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #41, #43 and #96) sampled residents who had side rails on their bed as documented on a list provided by Administrator on 05/27/23 at 7:45 AM, and failed to identify risk and respond to multiple elopements for 2 (Residents #13 and #40) of 4 (Residents #13, #38, #40 and #43) sampled residents who were at risk for wandering as documented on a list provided by Administrator on 05/27/23 at 7:45 AM. The findings are: 1. Resident #7 had diagnoses of Unspecified Dementia, Unspecified Severity, without Behaviors and Aphasia following a Cerebral Infarction. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/23/23 documented the resident scored 9 (8-12 indicates…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-06 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — isolatedProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
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 maintain the manufacturer's integrity of a sealed controlled medication prescribed for a resident and securely stored by the facility for 1 (Resident #1) of 7 Residents reviewed for personal property, specifically a sealed bottle of liquid opioid pain medication recorded and stored by staff nurses, was opened and missing part of its contents without the request of, or assessed need for, the prescribed resident. The findings include: A review of a facility policy titled, Storage of Medications, revised April 2007, indicated, Drugs and biologicals shall be stored in the packaging, containers or other dispensing systems in which they are received. Compartments (including, but not limited to, drawers, cabinets, rooms, refrigerators, carts, and boxes.) containing drugs and biologicals shall be locked when not in use, and trays or carts used to transport such items shall not be left unattended if open or otherwise potentially available 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 · D2024-11-20 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 dispense a pharmacy bubble packaged pain medication according to professional standards for 1 (Resident #3) of 3 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. Findings include: During an observation of a medication administration pass on 01/09/2025 at 7:54 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 pulled a pain medication card for Resident #3 and questioned why the pharmacy packaged two tablets in each bubble pouch when the order was for one. One bubble pouch was opened, and one tablet was gone, but one tablet remained. LPN #1 unsuccessfully attempted to call pharmacy and investigate. A review of the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident #3 with diagnoses that included dementia, cognitive communication deficit, age-related physical debility, and osteoarthritis. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/02/2024, revealed Resident #3 had a Staff Assessment of Mental Status (SAMS)…
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 · E2024-07-11 · 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 observations, interviews, record review, and facility document review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure dignity was maintained when providing wound care for 1 resident (Resident # 42) and when administering an insulin injection for 1 resident (Resident # 11). Findings include: A review of a facility document titled, Patient's [NAME] of Rights, undated, indicated, .2. Will be treated with consideration, respect, and full recognition of his/her dignity and . including privacy in treatment and in care of my personal needs . 9. Is assured confidential treatment of his/her personal and medical records .15. May have needs .accommodated .staff behaviors to assist residents in maintaining .dignity . 1. A review of the Detailed Summary, indicated the facility admitted Resident #42 with a diagnosis that included Alzheimer's Disease. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/27/2024 revealed Resident #42 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6 which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Section…
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 · E2024-07-11 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure oxygen was administered only when ordered by a physician to prevent potential respiratory complications for 1 (Resident #9) of 1 sampled resident. The findings are: A review of a facility policy titled, Medication and Treatment, dated July 2016 indicated, .1. Medications shall be administered only upon the written order of a person licensed and authorized to prescribe such medications in this state. A review of a facility policy titled, Medication Orders, dated November 2014 indicated, .3. Oxygen orders - When recording orders for oxygen, specify the rate of flow, route, and rationale . A review of Resident #9's Detailed Summary form indicated the facility admitted Resident #9 on 10/27/2009 with coronary obstructive pulmonary disease, and congestive heart failure. A review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/30/2024, documented Resident #9 scored 15 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact) on a Brief Interview for mental Status (BIMS) and received oxygen…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-07-11 · 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, and facility document review, it was determined the facility failed to maintain infection control practices as evidenced by wound care being provided to a resident sitting at a dining table for 1 (Resident # 42) of 1 resident observed with wounds. Findings include: A review of a facility document titled, Infection Control Goals of Infection Control and Prevention, undated, indicated, .2. Minimize opportunity for transmission of pathogens. 3. Apply current scientifically accepted infection prevention and control principles appropriate for the specific work environment .The Chain of Infection .The mode in which the organism travels to infect others .All environmental and working surfaces must be promptly cleaned and decontaminated after contact with blood or OPIM (other potentially infectious materials) .Transmission of infections is largely via hand contact with a surface . disinfecting environmental surfaces is fundamental to reducing infections . A review of the Detailed Summary, indicated the facility admitted Resident #42 with…
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 · F2023-05-26 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food items stored in the refrigerator, freezer and dry storage areas were sealed or covered; the ice machine was maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, and expired food items and drinks were promptly removed from stock to prevent the potential for bacteria growth for residents who received meal trays from 1 of 1 kitchen. These failed practices had the potential to affect 40 residents who received meals from the kitchen (total census: 40), as documented on a list provided by the Administrator on 05/25/23 at 7:45 AM. The findings are: 1.On 05/22/23 at 10:55 AM, in the Dry Storage Room of the kitchen in the Resident Care Center there was a clear plastic container with a red lid. The container contained 2 cups of granola with a use by date of 4/28. The Assistant Director/Dietary Manager (DM) stated, I think they forgot to change the label on that. 2. On 05/22/23 at 11:12 AM, in the main Kitchen's walk-in refrigerator there was a…
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 · F2023-05-26 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — widespreadRegularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to include the ongoing monitoring of bed siderails as part of their routine maintenance program for 40 beds observed during initial screening of residents and as documented on a list provided by the Administrator on 05/25/23 at 7:45 AM. The finding are: 1. During the initial tour on 05/24/23 at 10:49 AM, Resident Rooms 103, 204, 207, 312, 406 and 407 had quarter siderails in use on both sides of the bed. Observations conducted throughout the remainder of the survey revealed the side rails remained in use for all 40 residents. 2. On 05/24/23 at 1:10 PM, the Administrator confirmed the residents' bed siderails were not inspected or monitored as part of the facility's weekly or monthly routine maintenance program. The Administrator explained siderails are on the bed frames and were monitored as needed. The Administrator added they relied on staff to notify them when there was an issue that needed to be addressed with a bed siderail. 3. On 05/24/23 at 1:12 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the bed siderails were used on all…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-05-26 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, the facility failed to ensure an Individualized Plan of Care was implemented on the use of side rails and the potential for entrapment for 1 (Resident #7) of 37 (Residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #25, #26, #27, #29, #30, #32, #33, #34, #35, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #41, #43 and #96) sampled residents who had a diagnosis of Dementia and side rails on their beds as documented on a list provided by Administrator on 05/27/23 at 7:45 AM and failed to ensure an Individualized Plan of Care was implemented for 2 (Residents #13 and #40) of 4 (Residents #13, #38, #40 and #43) sampled residents who were at risk for wandering as documented on a list provided by Administrator on 05/27/23 at 7:45 AM. The findings are: 1. Resident #7 had diagnoses of Unspecified Dementia, Unspecified Severity, without Behaviors and Aphasia following a Cerebral Infarction. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/23/23 documented the resident scored 9 (8-12 indicates moderately…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-05-26 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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 a resident was adequately assessed for possible entrapment risk prior to utilization of bed rails, to prevent potential accident or injury for 1 (Resident #7) of 37 (Residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #25, #26, #27, #29, #30, #32, #33, #34, #35, #36, #37, #38, #39, #40, #41, #43 and #96) who used side rails as documented on a list provided by Administrator on 05/27/23 at 7:45 AM. The findings are: 1. Resident #7 had diagnoses of Unspecified Dementia, Unspecified Severity, without Behaviors and Aphasia following a Cerebral Infarction. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/23/23 documented the resident scored 9 (8-12 indicates moderately cognitively impaired) on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and required extensive physical assistance of two plus persons for bed mobility and did not use bed rails. a. A Care Plan with a start date of 10/27/22 documented, .May use top two rails in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-05-26 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — patternEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident medication orders and pharmacist reviews and recommendations were reviewed and signed timely by the Physician for 5 (Resident #1, #12, #17, #21 and #35) of 5 sampled residents for unnecessary medication review. This failed practice had the potential to affect 40 residents who received medications administered by the facility as documented on a list provided by the Administrator on 05/25/23 at 1:06 PM. The findings are: 1. On 05/22/23 at 12:27 PM and on 05/23/23 at 9:07 AM, during conversations with Resident #12 the Surveyor observed uncontrolled mouth movements. 2. On 05/23/23 at 3:25 PM, the Surveyor requested the monthly Medication Regimen Review (MRR) for the past 12 months for Resident #1, Resident #12, Resident #17, Resident #21, and Resident #35 from the MDS Coordinator. 3. On 05/23/23 at 3:43 PM, the DON stated, I know we are months behind on those [MRRs]. 4. On 05/23/23 at 4:16 PM, the Surveyor was unable to locate Resident #17 and Resident #35's MMR for unnecessary medications for the past 12…
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 · B2024-07-11 · tag F0661 — patternEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
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 discharge summary was provided for 1 (Resident #45) of 1 sampled resident to ensure education, a recapitulation of the resident's stay, and reconciliation of all pre- and post-discharge instructions were provided and to ensure clarification. The findings are: Review of a facility policy titled, Transfer or Discharge, Preparing a Resident for, dated December 2016, indicated Residents will be prepared in advance for discharge. When a resident is scheduled for transfer or discharge, the business office will notify nursing services of the transfer or discharge so that appropriate procedures can be implemented. A post-discharge plan is developed for each resident prior to his or her transfer or discharge. This plan will be reviewed with the resident, and/or his or her family, at least twenty-four (24) hours before the resident's discharge or transfer from the facility. Nursing services is responsible for: obtaining orders for discharge or transfer,…
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.
- 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
$58,006 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $58,006 — penalty dated 2025-03-06
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-04-04 for 1 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| CHAPMAN, KIMBERLY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2017 |
| CLARK, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2021 |
| CULVER, RAY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2022 |
| DUELL, MARC | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2023 |
| NICKLE, CHARLES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/26/2022 |
| OLMSTEAD, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2022 |
| SIMMONS, NINA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| STULTS, TIMOTHY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| VAUGHN-WROBEL, BETH | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2022 |
| WILLIAMS, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2019 |
| MOORE, KIMBERLY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2024 |
| SPEARS, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/29/2024 |
| WRIGHT, MICHAEL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/30/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 13 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
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
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Arkansas Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 045125. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-05, 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.