Brooken Hill Health And Rehab, Llc
9000 Hwy 71 South, Fort Smith, AR 72908 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 125 certified beds · (479) 409-2450 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 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.
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 | 17.0% | 9.5% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.5% | 4.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.3% | 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 | 2.7% | 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 | 7.5% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.7% | 10.1% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.4% | 21.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.9% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.3% | 4.2% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.8% | 13.5% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.9% | 10.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.3% | 1.3% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 61.8% | 77.7% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.3% | 24.1% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 17.5% | 12.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.18 | 2.01 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.88 | 2.13 | 1.80 | better |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Met the expected recovery: 55.2% 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 67 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 0.22 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 28% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 23% 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 | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 55.2% | 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 | 49.2% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 31.3% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 98.9% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 3.3% | 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 data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 125 beds and averages 104.2 residents a day — about 83% occupied, or roughly 21 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 5.80 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.30 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.89 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.81 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 6.20 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.36 to 0.13 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
9 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2026-04-23 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure shaving and nail care services were regularly provided to promote good personal hygiene and grooming for one (Resident #91) resident reviewed for shaving and one (Resident #107) resident reviewed for nail care services. The findings include: 1. On 04/21/2026 at 9:14 AM, Resident #91 was observed lying in bed with eyes closed and both arms were above the bed linen, exposing both the resident's arms and hands. There was nothing covering either of the residents' arms. The fingernails on both of the resident's hands extended over the tips of the fingers. On 04/22/2026 at 9:04 AM. Resident #91 was observed sitting up in a low chair in the common area located between halls 800 and 900. Resident #91 was holding a carton of a supplemental drink in the right hand. The fingernails on Resident #91's right hand extending over the tip of the fingers. Resident #91's left hand was not visible at this time. Resident #91's arms were exposed and there was nothing…
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 · D2026-04-23 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident with self-administration rights had the ability to follow instructions to ensure medications were not left at the bedside on three different observations for one (Resident #125) of one resident with self-administration rights reviewed. The findings include: Review of Resident #125's Medical Diagnosis report revealed the resident had diagnoses which included respiratory failure, heart failure, and type 2 diabetes. Review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/20/2026 indicated the status of the assessment to be in progress. The MDS indicated Resident #125 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and did not indicate the resident was on oxygen therapy. Review of Resident #125's Order Summary revealed an order for a beta2-agonist inhaler to be taken three times a day for acute respiratory failure with a start date of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-23 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to report an allegation of mistreatment to the proper state agency for one (Resident #74) of two residents reviewed for an allegation of abuse. The findings include: A review of the abuse policy, dated as revised 10/18/2022, revealed the facility will endeavor to protect residents from maltreatment, which means adult abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation of residents. The abuse policy indicated that all facility personnel, including all employees and any physician, the owner and Administrator, must immediately report all incidents of alleged, witnessed or suspected resident maltreatment, including abuse to the Administrator, or Administrator's designee, who will report events as required by State law or regulation. The abuse policy indicated all alleged violations will be reported immediately, but not later than two hours after the allegation is made, if abuse if involved or result in serious bodily…
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 · D2026-04-23 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to maintain evidence an allegation of mistreatment was thoroughly investigated for one (Resident #74) two residents reviewed for an allegation of abuse. The findings are: A review of the abuse policy, dated as revised 10/18/2022, revealed the facility will endeavor to protect residents from maltreatment, which means adult abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation of residents. The abuse policy revealed the Administrator or Administrative Designee will conduct an immediate investigation of all alleged, witnessed or suspected resident maltreatment, including abuse. The abuse policy indicated the investigator should consider interviews with the facility employees, victim resident, other residents, family members and other persons who may have knowledge of the incident. On 04/20/2026 at 2:37 PM, Resident #74 was interviewed and when asked if any staff had been physically abusive towards the resident,…
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 · D2026-04-23 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) was completed within 14 days from the effective date of the hospice service election for one (Resident #91) of two residents reviewed for Hospice services. The findings include: Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS's) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Version 3.0 Manual, version 1.20.1 and dated October 2025, revealed a Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) is required when a terminally ill resident enrolls in a hospice program, or changes hospice providers and remains a resident at the nursing home. The Assessment Reference Date (ARD) must be within 14 days from the effective date of the hospice service election. On 04/23/2026at 9:28 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant #14 was interviewed and stated Resident #91's baths were provided by the Hospice aids and stated she thought the Hospice aid came to the facility three days a week. A review of the Physician's Orders for Resident #91…
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 · D2026-04-23 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility document review, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan reflecting a communication deficit of a nonverbal resident one (Resident #99) of one reviewed for comprehensive care planning. The findings include: During concurrent observation and interview on 04/21/2026 at 2:14 PM, Resident #99 was in their room sitting in a wheelchair with two family members present. Resident #99 was unable to move the right side of their body, including face/mouth due to a stroke and was nonverbal. Resident #99 did move the left hand to indicate numbers. The family members stated, no one at the facility knew sign language and they had never seen a staff member use a communication board or anything like that, but [staff] did ask yes/no questions. A review of Nursing Admit/Readmit/Quarterly Assessment dated 03/04/2026, indicated nonverbal Resident #99 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.
- Potential for harm · D2026-04-23 · 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
Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to utilize appropriate equipment during resident transfers for one (Resident #36) of three residents reviewed for accidents to ensure residents were not put at risk for injury. Specifically, staff transferred a resident without using a gait belt resulting in a fall with knee abrasion. The findings include: Review of a Medical Diagnosis Report revealed Resident #36 had diagnoses which included left lower leg blood clot, stage 4 kidney disease and type 2 diabetes. Review of Resident #36's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 02/02/2026 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS also indicated Resident #36 had one fall in the last 2-6 months. Review of an unwitnessed Incident and Accident Report, dated 03/19/2026, Resident #36 slid out of a wheelchair while trying to pick a ring up from the floor. Resident #36 had no injuries. Review of witnessed…
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 · D2026-04-23 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observations, record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure scheduled orders for oxygen therapy were active before administering oxygen to a resident and failed to ensure respiratory care services in accordance with resident preferences to have humidified water for comfort, affecting one (Resident #125) of one resident reviewed for respiratory care. Specifically, Resident #125 was without humidified water for nasal comfort over three days, and on day two an empty humidified water bottle was dated 4/21/2026 when oxygen storage bag and tubing were replaced. The findings include: Review of a Medical Diagnosis report revealed Resident #125 had diagnoses which included respiratory failure, heart failure, and diabetes type II. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/20/2026 indicated the MDS was in progress. The MDS indicated Resident #125 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] but did…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-07 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record review, facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to obtain and implement physician orders to provide care for a post-operative surgical wound for one (Resident #2) of three residents reviewed for wound care quality. Resident #2 experienced wound dehiscence, rehospitalization, and emergency surgery. The findings include: A review of a facility undated document titled, Admission/Readmission/Transfer back from hospital heads up form, indicated ways to prepare the room, gather needed equipment, and gathering of specific resident history. No guidance was provided for physician contact or intake of orders. A review of a facility document titled, Dressing Change Using Aseptic Technique, dated 11/22/2016, indicated steps for gathering equipment and supplies as well as steps through the procedure. There was no mention of referring to Physician Orders for assessment or instructions of documentation of the process. A review of the Charge Nurse Job Description…
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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CENTRAL ARKANSAS NURSING CENTERS — 38 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 | 3 of 5 | 3.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 3.3 | -1.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 4.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
The other 37 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.6★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NORSWORTHY, DAVID | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 30% | since 02/08/2023 |
| MORTON, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 03/01/2024 |
| LE, THANH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2024 |
| TERRY, KRISTI | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 7 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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 045479. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-04-23, 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.