Maple Healthcare
200 S Maple Street, Hazen, AR 72064 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 70 certified beds · (870) 255-4323 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- the CMS record shows $33,800 in federal fines (most recent 2025-06-05)
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure 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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 2 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 | 22.6% | 9.5% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 11.6% | 4.3% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.6% | 0.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.7% | 1.2% | 2.0% | worse |
| 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 | 6.5% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.8% | 10.1% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 22.4% | 21.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 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 | 17.9% | 13.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 0.0% | 10.9% | 17.1% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.52 | 2.01 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.07 | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.10 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 6% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 60% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy at close to weekday levels right through 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.0%CMS range 7.3–15.9 | 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 | 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 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 0.74 | 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 70 beds and averages 35.6 residents a day — about 51% occupied, or roughly 34 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.56 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.37 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.44 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 3.01 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.78 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.38 to 0.36 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 47% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · H2025-06-05 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — patternProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, it was determined that facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical and psychosocial harm for 2 (Resident #5 and 23) of 3 residents reviewed for abuse. The findings include: A review of an admission Record indicted the facility admitted Resident #25 with a diagnosis of dementia with agitation and delirium. A review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 05/22/2025 revealed Resident #25 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicated the resident had exhibited physical behavioral symptoms towards others. A review of Resident #25 ' s Care Plan revealed it was noted on 03/03/2025 the resident had the potential to be physically aggressive. A review of an admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #5 with a diagnosis of epilepsy (a disorder where nerve cell activity in the brain is disturbed causing seizures). The quarterly MDS with an ARD 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 · D2025-06-05 · 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
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to report a resident-to-resident altercation to the Office of Long-Term Care for two (Resident #5 and Resident #25) of two residents reviewed for abuse. The findings included: 1. A review of Resident #5 ' s admission Record indicted the facility admitted the resident with diagnoses of intellectual disabilities and history of traumatic brain injury, which included epilepsy. a. A review of Resident #5 ' s quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/12/2025, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated intact mental cognition. b. A review of Resident #5 ' s, Care Plan, initiated 12/18/2022, indicated the resident was deemed appropriate for placement on the memory care unit. The Care Plan also revealed interventions, with an initiation date of 02/18/2025, which directed staff to redirect the resident when exit seeking or if there was an altercation with another resident, speak directly 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 · F2024-03-07 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff washed their hands during meal preparation to decrease the potential for contaminating food items for residents who received meals from 1 of 1 kitchen. This failed practice had the potential to affect all 30 residents (Census: 30) as documented on a list provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/7/24. The findings are: 1. On 3/6/24 at 10:15 AM, Dietary Employee (DE) #1 prepared a few pans of pizza. DE #1 removed the gloves, picked up a resealable plastic bag and with the right hand, used a black permanent marker to write something on the bag. Without washing her hands, DE #1 put a glove on the right hand, held the resealable plastic bag in the left ungloved hand, and used the right gloved hand to remove left over cheese from a metal pan and place it inside of the resealable plastic bag, sealed the bag and placed it in the refrigerator. 2. On 3/6/24 at 10:27 AM, DE #1 retrieved a bag of sealed lettuce from a refrigerator. Without washing hands, DE #1 put on a pair of gloves, picked up…
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 · E2024-03-07 · tag F0554 — patternAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
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 assessed and deemed safe for self-administration of medications for 1 (Resident #23) of 1 sampled resident whose medication was left at the bedside. The findings are: The Care Plan with a revision date of 01/24/24 did not address self-administration of medications. The March 2024 Physician Orders did not address self-administration of medications. The March 2024 Medication Administration Record revealed Resident #23 was to receive a nebulizer (updraft) treatment, diuretic, antidepressant, antibiotics, pain, steroid, heart and immunodeficiency medications each morning. On 3/5/24 at 8:31 AM, Resident #23 had a medication cup with 11 pills, a medication cup with a crushed substance and particles with a spoon in it and a clear liquid in the chamber of the nebulizer. Resident #23 was lying on the left side turned away from the medications. On 3/5/24 at 8:32 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 was asked if there was anyone who was assessed to self-administer medication. LPN #2 stated, No. 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 · E2024-03-07 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a psychotropic medication was not used on a PRN (as needed) basis for more than 14 days and without a documented rationale by a provider to promote or maintain the highest practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial wellbeing for 1 (Resident #25) of 2 (Residents #20 and #25) sampled residents who had physician's orders for Ativan on a PRN basis. The findings are: 2. Resident #25 had diagnoses of Alzheimer's Disease, Anxiety Disorder and Dementia. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/12/24 documented the resident had a Staff Assessment of Mental Status (SAMS) score of 3 (03-indicates severely impaired). a. A Physician's Order dated 02/02/24 documented, .Ativan 0.5 mg [milligrams] PO [by mouth] Q [every] 8 hr [hours] prn . There was no end date for this medication. b. A Care Plan revised on 2/27/24 documented, .Resident is at risk for side effects and complications of psychotropic drug use R/T [related to] Dementia with Behavior Disturbance, Depression and anxiety .…
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 · D2024-03-07 · 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, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure fingernails were cleaned and trimmed and facial hair was shaved to promote good personal hygiene and grooming for 1 (Resident #12) of 6 sampled residents who required assistance with nail care and 1 (Resident #12) of 4 sampled residents who required assistance with shaving on the secured unit. The findings are: Resident #12 had diagnoses of Unspecified Dementia and Unspecified Lack of Coordination. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/24/24 documented the resident had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) scored of 05 (00-07 indicates severely impaired) and required partial to moderate assistance with personal hygiene. a. A Care Plan last revised on 1/29/24 documented, .offer and assist [Resident #12] with showers 2 times weekly, PRN [as needed] and upon request . If [Resident #12] refuses care, approach at a later time and offer care . Keep Nails Smooth, Clean & [and] Trimmed, (Hands & Feet). Report To Nurse PRN Inability To Trim Nails D/T Thickness . b.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-07 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure parameters were put in place to ensure the correct dosage of oxygen was administered and so the Physician could determine the dosage needed for 1 (Resident #29) of 1 sampled resident. The findings are: 1. Resident #29 was admitted on [DATE] with the diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Unspecified. a. On 03/04/24 at 10:26 AM, Resident #29 was lying in bed with oxygen on via nasal cannula at 2 liters per minute (LPM). b. On 03/05/24 at 07:54 AM, Resident #29 was lying in bed with oxygen on via nasal cannula at 2 LPM. c. A Physicians Order dated 11/13/23 documented oxygen on at 2 liters via nasal cannula to keep sats (saturation, the level of oxygen in the blood) at 90% or above, every shift for shortness of breath. d. A Care Plan with an initiated date of 11/13/23 documented, Resident is at risk for breathing difficulties r/t [related to] COPD. O2 [oxygen] at 2 L/min [liters per minute] via NC [nasal cannula] as…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-12-22 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to store and maintain Oxygen tubing appropriately for 1 Resident (#6) of 4 sampled residents (R #6, R #9, R #10, R #14) who had a Physician's Order for Oxygen. This failed practice had the potential to affect 7 residents who had a Physician's Order for oxygen as documented on a list provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 12/21/22 at 12:15 PM. The findings are: Resident #6 was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Pneumonia, Unspecified Organism, Hypothyroidism, Anemia, Essential Primary Hypertension. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/30/22 documented the resident scored 4 (0-7 indicates cognitively severe impairment) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). A Physician's Order dated 10/8/22 stated, .O2 at 2 L/min [liters/minute] via [by way of] nasal cannula as needed for Shortness of Breath (SOB) or pulse ox [Pulse Oximetry less than] < 90% [percent]. as needed . a. On 12/20/22…
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 · D2022-12-22 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 the residents' orders and care plan accurately reflected the resident's advanced directive decision that documented they did not want cardiopulmonary resuscitation for 1 (Resident #134) sampled residents whose clinical records were reviewed for advanced directive information. This failed practice had the potential to affect all 32 Residents who resided in the facility, as documented on the Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form provided by the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator on [DATE] at 11:48 a.m. The findings are: 1. Resident #134 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Periprosthetic Fracture around Internal Prosthetic Right Hip Joint, Diabetes Mellitus, and Acute on Chronic Respiratory Failure. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of [DATE] documented the resident scored 15 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental status (BIMS), required…
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 · D2022-12-22 · tag F0661 — isolatedEnsure 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
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a written discharge summary was completed that included a recapitulation of the resident's and course of treatment for 1 of 10 discharged residents (Resident #32) of 1 sampled resident who was discharged in the past 90 days. 1. Resident #32 had diagnoses of Other Schizoaffective Disorder, Chronic Embolism and Thrombosis of the other Specified Veins, and Other Recurrent Depressive Disorders. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/18/22 documented the resident scored 15 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact) on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). a. On 12/21/22 at 09:05 am, The record review was completed by the surveyor and a discharge summary could not be located. b. On 12/21/22 at 09:08 am, the facility found the resident placement at another facility and provided the resident with transportation to the receiving facility. c. On 12/21/22 at 09:38 am, The Surveyor asked the Director of Nursing (DON), Can you provide a discharge summary for R #32? The DON stated, Let…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$33,800 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $33,800 — penalty dated 2025-06-05
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-07-03 for 26 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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to MARSH POINTE MANAGEMENT — 6 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 | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
The other 5 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.5★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BROGDON GRANDCHILDREN TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 11/01/2018 |
| BROGDON, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2018 |
| NICHOLS, CHERYL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2018 |
| MARSH POINTE MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/13/2025 |
| BARKER, RUSHELL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/2018 |
| MORGAN, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/20/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 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 82% 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 $117K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in AR
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Arkansas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 045228. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-05, 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.