The Pines Nursing And Rehabilitation Center
524 Carpenter Dam Road, Hot Springs, AR 71901 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 125 certified beds · (501) 262-4124 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)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $13,863 in federal fines (most recent 2024-08-29)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- about 56% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
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 | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 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 held steady at 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 | 5.1% | 9.5% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.5% | 4.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.2% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 1.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.0% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.8% | 10.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 25.9% | 21.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.7% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 7.2% | 4.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 8.5% | 13.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 2.3% | 10.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.7% | 77.7% | 79.4% | typical |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
43.0% 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 45 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 73.1% 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 26 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 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 13% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 7% 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 | 43.0%CMS range 31.5–56.6 | 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 | 12.0%CMS range 8.4–17.9 | 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 | 73.1% | 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 | 73.1% | 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 | 46.1% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.5% | 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 | 9.7%CMS range 5.5–15.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.17 | 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 125 beds and averages 73.1 residents a day — about 58% occupied, or roughly 52 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 4.04 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.48 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.64 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 3.62 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.21 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.62 to 0.15 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-08-29 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors related to insulin administration for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for newly admitted residents. Specifically, Resident #1 was admitted to a local hospital on 7/19/2024 due to a fall and left upper extremity pain. While at the hospital, the resident was diagnosed with left upper extremity thrombosis and had a necrotic ulcer on the left elbow, which was debrided at the hospital. On 07/31/2024, Resident #`1 was admitted to the nursing home facility with an order for continued anticoagulation (blood thinner) therapy. The resident's nursing home admission diagnosis was embolism or thrombosis of the arteries in the upper extremity. The physician's order for the blood thinner was not transcribed by the admitting nurse. From 07/31/2024 to 08/07/2024, the resident complained of left arm pain and received medication for the pain. On 08/07/2024, Resident #1 was found…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-04-02 · 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, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure expired food items and leftover food items were promptly removed and/or discarded on or before the expiration or use by date, dietary staff washed their hands between dirty and clean tasks and before handling clean equipment, and hot food items were maintained at above 135 degrees Fahrenheit on the steam table while awaiting meal service for 1 of 1 meals observed. The findings are: 1. On 03/30/25 at 10:34 AM, Dietary [NAME] (DC) #4 was wearing gloves on his hands when he deboned seven (7) servings of chicken thighs and emptied them into a blender to ground. He brushed spilled pieces of meat crumbs from the counter into his gloved hands, contaminating the gloves. He then removed the gloves from his hands and placed new gloves contaminating them by not washing his hands. He used his contaminated gloved hands to push ground chicken into a pan to be served to the residents who received mechanical soft diets for lunch. 2. On 03/30/25 at 11:27 AM, one packet of turkey slices was on 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 · E2025-04-02 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5% for two (Resident #5, #29) of five sampled residents observed during medication pass. Two (2) errors in medications were observed during thirty-eight (38) opportunities for errors in medication administration. This resulted in a medication error rate of 5.26%. The findings include: 1. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with the Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 02/26/2025, revealed Resident #29 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating cognitively intact. a. A review of the Care Plan Report for Resident #29 (revision date 11/26/2024), revealed that Resident #29 had altered respiratory status/difficulty breathing related to (r/t) Congestive Heart Failure (CHF), Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA), and asthma. Administer medication/treatment as ordered and observe for effectiveness. b. A review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that Resident #29 had an order for a [Name brand…
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 before2025-04-02 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and review of the menu, the facility failed to ensure meals were prepared and served according to the planned written menu to meet the nutritional needs of the residents for 1 of the 2 meals observed. The findings are: 1. During the observation of noon meal preparation in the kitchen on 03/30/25 at 10:34 AM, Dietary [NAME] (DC) #4 deboned seven (7) pieces of chicken thighs into a blender, of which one chicken thigh weighed 1.7 ounces, ground, and placed into a pan to serve 14 residents who received mechanical soft diets. 2. During an observation of noon meal service on 03/30/25 at 12:11 AM, DC # 4 used a #8 scoop (4 oz) to serve ground fried chicken. He gave half a portion (2 oz or 1/2 cup) per serving. DC #6, who observed DC #4, stated she should have given full serving to the residents, instead of half servings. 3. During an interview on 03/30/25 at 12:41 PM, DC #4, who prepared lunch meals, was asked how many residents were on mechanical soft diets. He stated about seven (7) residents. He was also asked how many servings of fried chicken he…
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 · D2025-04-02 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, facility document review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions were implemented for 1 (Resident #64) of 2 Residents reviewed for Enhanced Barrier Precautions. The findings are: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/25/2025, indicated Resident #64 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 (indicating the resident was cognitively intact), and had diagnoses including anemia, heart failure, pneumonia, and Multidrug-Resistant Organism (MDRO). The resident was receiving intravenous (IV) antibiotics. 2. On 04/01/2025 at 3:19 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 was observed administering an IV antibiotic solution to Resident #64. The resident's room was observed to have signage on the door indicating the resident needed Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for high-contact care. The EBP sign indicated staff should wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), that included both a gown and gloves. a. LPN #2 took medication and pump to the resident's room, performed…
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 · E2024-08-29 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — patternImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the physician and/or the resident's representative of abnormal finger stick blood sugars, elevated white blood cell count, and the identification of a new pressure ulcer for 1 (Resident #3) of 4 residents reviewed for notification of change. Findings include: A review of the facility's undated policy titled Notification of Change, indicated The nursing facility will immediately inform the Resident/Elder and consult with the Resident/Elder's physician, when a significant change occurs. The nursing facility will also notify the Resident/Elder's legal representative or a designated contact person when a significant change occurs. A review of the admission Record, indicated Resident #3 had diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes, pressure ulcer to the left buttock, heart disease, muscle weakness, difficulty walking, pain, cognitive communication deficit, and a history of falling. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/22/2024, revealed…
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 · E2024-08-29 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — patternProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record review, facility document review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure physicians orders were followed for wound care treatment for 2 (Resident #2 and Resident #4) of 3 residents reviewed for skin concerns and/or pressure ulcers. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure wound care was provided to residents when the designated wound care nurse was out sick. Findings include: 1. A review of the admission record, indicated the facility admitted Resident #2 with diagnoses that included liver failure, metabolic disorder, major depression, schizophrenia, and sepsis left buttock stage 4 pressure ulcer. The signification change Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/07/2024, revealed Resident #2 had a Staff Assessment of Mental Status (SAMS) score of 2 which indicated the resident was moderately impaired for daily decision making Resident #2 had a stage 4 pressure ulcer. A review of Resident #2's care plan, revealed the resident had a left lluteal stage 4 pressure ulcer. Interventions included 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 · Fcited before2024-02-23 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff washed their hands before handling clean equipment or food items to prevent potential food borne illness for residents who received meals from 1 of 1 kitchen, failed to ensure the ice machine was maintained in clean and sanitary condition to prevent contamination of airborne particles, failed to ensure food items stored in the refrigerator or freezer were sealed, labeled and dated, failed to ensure foods were dated the day received to assure first in, first out usage to prevent potential for food bone illness, failed to ensure expired food items were promptly remove/discarded by the expiration or use by dates, and failed to ensure kitchen floors and kitchen walls were free of stains and chips. These failed practices had the potential to affect 75 residents who received meals from the kitchen (total census: 76). The findings are: 1. On 02/20/24 at 10:06 AM, Dietary Employee (DE) #1 took the coffee dispenser to the dining room and walked back into kitchen. Without washing her hands, she picked up glasses…
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 · E2024-02-23 · tag F0623 — patternProvide timely notification to the resident, and if applicable to the resident representative and ombudsman, before transfer or discharge, including appeal rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to send the State Long Term Care Ombudsman a copy of the notice of transfer/discharge to the hospital to ensure protection of Resident Rights for 3 (Resident #12, #24, and #39) sampled residents who were discharged /transferred to the hospital. The findings are: 1. Resident #39 had diagnoses of Metabolic encephalopathy, Diabetes mellitus, and Anemia. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 2/14/24 documented that the resident scored 15 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). a. A physician's order dated 12/23/2023 documented, .send resident out to [named organization] emergency room for possible GI bleed . b. Resident #39 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] and discharged back to the facility on [DATE]. The hospital progress notes documented, .Discharge Summary .12/27/23: Pt (patient) admitted [DATE] for 1. GI (Gastrointestinal) Bleed 2. UTI (Urinary Tract Infection)…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-02-23 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
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 meals were prepared and served according to the planned written menu to meet the nutritional needs of the residents for 1 of 1 meal observed. The findings are: 1. On 02/20/24, the menu for the lunch meal documented residents who received regular were to receive 3oz (ounces) of baked ham; and residents who received pureed diets were to receive a # (number) 8 scoop of pureed ham (4oz) and a #8 scoop (1/2 cup) of pureed cornbread. 2. On 02/20/24 at 01:07 PM, the residents' regular diets were served less than 3 ounces of baked ham, instead of 3 ounces as per the menu. 3. On 02/20/24 at 01:10 PM, the resident on a pureed diet was served pureed dressing, pureed ham, pureed turnip greens and pureed plain cake. There was no pureed cornbread served to the resident on a pureed diet. 4. On 02/20/24 at 01:18 PM, the surveyor asked Dietary Employee (DE) #3 the reason the resident on a puree diet was not served. DE #3 stated, The cornbread or bread were not pureed. The resident received stuffing. Is stuffing not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-23 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 the Minimum Data Set [MDS] accurately reflected the residents discharge status for 1(Resident #80) sampled resident who discharged home. The findings are: 1.Resident #80 had diagnoses of Right fractured shaft of humerus, Anxiety, Depression, Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), Hypertension (HTN), and Arthritis. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/11/23 documented that the resident scored 15 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact) and that the resident's overall goal was to discharge to the community. a. A physician's order dated 12/23/23 documented, .May discharge resident to home with all medications and personal belongings . b. A nurses note dated 12/23/23 at 10:52 documented, .resident signed and acknowledged all discharge paperwork. Signed out narcotics to resident. resident was then escorted out of facility to vehicle by this nurse. all personal belongings and medications sent home with resident . c. The MDS with an ARD of 12/23/23 noted, Discharge -return not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-12-09 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure an environment free from accident hazards over which the facility had control and provided supervision to each resident to prevent avoidable accidents for 1 (Resident #32) of 1 sampled resident. This failed practice had the potential to affect 18 residents residing on the 100 Hall who were self-mobile according to a list provided by the Administrator on 12/8/22 at 10:58 am. The findings are: 1. Resident #32 had diagnoses of Heart Failure, Cerebral Infarction, Cerebral Palsy, Abnormal Coagulation Profile, and Hypertension. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 9/28/22 documented that the resident scored 13 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and required extensive assistance with toileting, totally dependent for transferring, and required set up and supervision with eating. a. The Physicians Order dated 10/21/22 documented, .Resident wishes to not be given any medications prior to noon . b. The Medication…
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 before2022-12-09 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 physician orders were followed to prevent a significant medication error for 1 (Resident #32) of 1 sampled resident who had physician orders for Cardizem LA twice a day and 1 (Resident #32) of 4 (Residents #28, #32, #74 and #78) sampled residents who had physician orders for Eliquis twice a day. This failed practice had the potential to effect 1 resident who had physician orders for Cardizem and 10 residents who had physician orders for Eliquis and resided in the facility according to a list provided by the Administrator on 12/08/22 at 1:45 pm. The findings are: 1. Resident # 32 had diagnoses of Heart Failure, Cerebral Infarction, Cerebral Palsy, Abnormal Coagulation Profile and Hypertension. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 9/28/22 documented the resident scored 13 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact) on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and required extensive assistance with toileting, totally dependent for transferring, and required set up and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-12-09 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored in a locked medication cart. This failed practice had the potential to affect 18 self-mobile residents who resided in the facility on the 100 Hall as documented on a list provided by the Administrator on 12/08/22 at 10:58 AM. The findings are: a. On 12/07/22 at 8:10 AM, on the entrance to the 100 Hall there was an unlocked medication cart. There were no staff visible on 100 Hall or in the nurse's station. The Surveyor waited until Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 returned to cart. When LPN #1 returned to the medication cart the Surveyor asked, Should the medication cart be unlocked and unattended? LPN #1 stated, No, it should not, but I heard a resident yelling down the hall, and I had to go check on them. The Surveyor asked, What room did you have to go to? LPN #1 stated, I rushed to room [ROOM NUMBER]. The Surveyor asked, Why should the medication cart not be unlocked and unattended? LPN #1 stated, The residents may get…
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 · D2022-12-09 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided with the opportunity to participate in care planning meetings for 1 (Resident #74) of 24 sampled residents reviewed for care plan participation. Findings included: During an interview on 12/08/2022 at 2:06 PM, the Administrator stated the facility did not have a policy regarding care plan meetings. A review of a resident demographic record revealed Resident #74 was his/her own responsible party. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Resident #74 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated the resident had active diagnoses of coronary artery disease, heart failure, non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety, and depression. Per the MDS, the resident had no hearing, speech, or vision impairment. Review of Resident #74's care plan revealed the last care plan review was completed on 10/16/2022. The name and signature…
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
$13,863 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $13,863 — penalty dated 2024-08-29
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 SOUTHERN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES — 35 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 | 4 of 5 | 3.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
The other 34 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.8★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4P2T1 OPS HOLDING LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 09/01/2019 |
| JEJ ASSETS LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2022 |
| PONTHIE, SHARLOT | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2022 |
| PONTHIE, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 09/01/2019 |
| ALEXARK1 LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| JEJ MANAGEMENT, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| HIGGS, JOHN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/21/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 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.
This home reported $4.7M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 56% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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 045243. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-04-02, 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.