The Springs Of Pinnacle Mountain
6411 Valley Ranch Drive, Little Rock, AR 72223 · For profit - Corporation · 110 certified beds · (501) 868-8857 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- 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
- 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
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (74%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- about 34% 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 4 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 | 10.3% | 9.5% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.8% | 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 | 0.3% | 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 | 2.3% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.6% | 10.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.9% | 21.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 86.5% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.0% | 4.2% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 8.8% | 13.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.0% | 10.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.0% | 1.3% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 54.3% | 77.7% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 34.3% | 24.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.9% | 12.5% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.11 | 2.01 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.11 | 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.
43.1% 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 27 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 49% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 13% 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 | 43.1%CMS range 30.5–58.6 | 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 | 11.3%CMS range 8.4–15.3 | 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 | 79.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.7% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 6.9% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.7%CMS range 4.6–12.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.94 | 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 110 beds and averages 79.1 residents a day — about 72% occupied, or roughly 31 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.95 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.24 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.72 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 3.44 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.16 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.20 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 74% is well above 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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-04-23 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to consistently give prescription pain medication every four (4) hours, as scheduled, for one (1) (Resident #4) of five residents reviewed for medication review. The findings are: A review of an admission Record indicated Resident #4 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included: fracture to right ankle, chronic pain syndrome, anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 01/14/2025, revealed Resident #4 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact for their daily decision making. Review of Resident #4's Care Plan initiated 01/17/2025, revealed the resident was on pain medication therapy. Interventions included Warning: Addiction, abuse, and misuse, and to reduce the risk for respiratory depression, proper dosing and titration of [Name Brand Combination Opioid/Pain Medication], were essential. On 04/21/2025 at…
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 · D2025-07-07 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure dietary orders were followed for one (Resident #1) of three residents.The findings include: A review of Resident #1's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 06/25/2025, with diagnoses which included a partial intestinal obstruction, a non-cancerous growth or tumor of the pancreas, abnormal heart rhythm, and swelling of both lower limbs. A review of Resident #1’s 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 06/27/2025, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The remainder of the MDS, including functional abilities, health conditions, and medications, was not completed. A review of Resident #1’s Hospital Discharge records indicated the resident had the following procedures performed: on 06/03/2025 – Whipple Procedure (a complex abdominal surgery primarily used to treat tumors in the head of the pancreas) and a hernia repair. On 06/16/2025 – a medical procedure where a thin,…
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 · D2025-04-23 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, record review, facility document and policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to report an abuse allegation to proper authorities for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents, reviewed for abuse and neglect. The findings include: A review of the facility's undated policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Misappropriation, indicated facility must notify local law enforcement agencies. A review of the admission Record Face Sheet, indicated Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included type II diabetes mellitus, cognitive communication deficit, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/01/2025, revealed Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. On 04/21/2025 at 12:45PM, a review of the facility's internal investigation report, involving abuse allegations from Resident #1 against Medical…
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 before2024-09-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure food preparations were separate from soiled areas of the kitchen, to ensure kitchen equipment was cleaned before storage, and that hand sanitation was performed during meal service. The findings are: On 9/25/2024 at 11:14 AM, while observing the [NAME] puree the lunch meal that consisted of chicken, broccoli, noodles, and garlic herb biscuits, the right side of a sink that was 10 inches away from food blender had several inches of brown liquid with chunks of what appeared to be noodles and broccoli floating in it. On 9/25/2024 at 11:28 AM, the [NAME] was observed draining noodles in a colander on the clean, left side of the sink prior to pureeing them. On 9/25/2024 at 11:59 AM, the [NAME] rinsed the colander out in the left side of the sink and hung it on a rack located directly above the sink, without washing and sanitizing it first. On 9/26/2024 at 8:17 AM, the surveyor asked the Dietary Manager (DM) if food preparation should be performed next to a dirty sink. The DM stated no, the…
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 · E2024-09-26 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — patternReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure reasonable accommodation of resident needs were provided for 2 (Residents #11,and #26) of 16 sampled residents. The findings are: Resident #11 had a score of 00 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) per a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/22/2024. Additionally, Resident #11 was identified as being non-ambulatory, dependent on staff for all activities of daily living, and non-verbal. During an observation on 9/23/2024 at 10:20 AM, Resident #11 did not have a call light in reach. Resident was sitting in chair in front of tv and call light was on the floor behind resident's chair. During an observation on 9/25/2024 at 1:10 PM, Resident #11 and Resident #26, who were roommates, were in their room sitting in chairs with no call lights within the resident's reach. Both call lights were laying in the floor behind their chairs. On 9/25/2024 at 1:13 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #6 said staff should make sure residents have the call…
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 · E2024-09-26 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor 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
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to formulate an advance directive, and document if formulation of an advanced directive was refused for 2 of 2 (Resident #13, and Resident #23) residents reviewed for advance directives. The findings are: A review of a facility policy titled, Advance Directives, revised December 2016, indicated the resident will be provided information concerning an advance directive upon admission. Information about whether the resident has executed an advance directive should be in medical records. The advance directives should be reviewed annually with the resident to ensure the directives are still the wishes of the resident. 1. A review of an Order Summary Report indicated Resident #13 had a diagnosis of Epilepsy. a. The quarterly Minimum Data (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/30/2024 revealed Resident #13 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. b. On 09/24/24 at 10:00 AM, an advance directive was not available for review in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-09-26 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to keep resident's personal wheelchairs in good repair without holes, tears, and rips to prevent injuries for 3 (Residents #34, #43, and #45) reviewed for equipment safety. Findings include: A review of a facility policy titled, Maintenance Service, revised on 12/01/2009, indicated services would be provided to all areas of the building, grounds and equipment and maintenance personnel would follow safety regulations to ensure the safety and well-being of all concerned. During an observation on 09/23/2024 at 10:44 AM, the left arm rest on the wheelchair of Resident #43 was noted to be torn, the vinyl/leather turned up and the foam underneath showing. The right arm rest of the wheelchair had a tear/hole in the vinyl and was turned up around the edges. During an observation on 09/23/2024 10:45 AM, the back rest of the wheelchair along the edge, for Resident #45 was vinyl/leather was noted to be cracking and peeling, revealing the soft material underneath. During an observation on 09/25/24 at 9:42 AM, the…
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 before2024-09-26 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to administer scheduled pain medication for 1 of 1 (Resident #19) reviewed for pain. The findings are: Review of a facility policy titled, Administering Medications, indicated medications are administered according with the prescriber orders. Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber's orders, and within the required time frame. Medication administration times are determined by resident need and benefit, and not for staff convenience. Medications are administered within one hour of their prescribed time. A review of an Order Summary Report indicated that Resident #19 had a diagnoses of low back pain, unspecified, and polyarthritis. Resident #19 had an order for Hydrocodone- Acetaminophen (Pain) 10-325 mg scheduled four times a day with a start date of 08/28/2024. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/14/2024, revealed Resident #19 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-10-05 · 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 foods stored in the refrigerator, freezer and dry storage area were covered, sealed and dated to minimize the potential for food borne illness for residents who received meals from 1 of 1 kitchen; leftover food items were used in a manner to maintain food quality; expired food items were promptly removed from stock to prevent potential food borne illness; dietary staff washed their hands before handling clean equipment or food items to prevent potential food borne illness; 1 of 1 ice machine was maintained in clean condition; hot food items were at temperature that was acceptable to the residents to improve palatability; and floor and kitchen appliances and were maintained in clean sanitary conditions to prevent the potential food borne illnesses for residents who received meals from 1 of 1 kitchen.; These failed practices had the potential to affect 73 residents who received meals from the kitchen (Total Census: 76), as documented on a list provided by the Dietary District Manager on 10/03/23. The findings are: 1.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-05 · 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 2 of 2 meals observed. This failed practice had the potential to affect 4 residents who received pureed diets, 12 residents who received mechanical soft diets, and 57 residents who received regular diets from 1 of 1 kitchen according to a list provided by the Dietary District Manager on 10/03/23 at 12:04 PM. findings are: 1. The menu for the lunch meal on 10/02/23 documented all diets were to receive strawberry shortcake and residents on regular diets were to receive 3 ounces of herb roasted chicken and residents on pureed diets were to receive pureed dinner roll. 2. On 10/02/23 at 1:10 PM, the residents on regular diets were served one small herb roasted chicken thigh each. At 1:44 PM, the Surveyor asked the Dietary District Manger to weigh the same amount of baked chicken served to the residents for lunch. She did so and stated, It weighed 1.9 ounces, instead of 3 ounces as per the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-05 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure meals were served in a method that maintained the appearance, nutritive value, cold product, and hot food items at temperatures that were acceptable to the residents to improve palatability and encourage good nutritional intake during 1 of 1 meal observed. This failed practice had the potential to affect 24 residents who received meal trays in their rooms on the 100 Hall, 5 residents who received meal trays in their rooms on the 200 Hall, 20 residents who received meal trays on the 300 Hall, 23 residents who received meal trays on the 400 Hall, as documented on a list provided by the Administrator on 10/03/23 at 11:40 AM. The findings are: 1. On 10/02/23 at 11:22 AM, the Surveyor asked Resident #6 if the food being served was satisfactory. Resident #6 reported that the food was good but was sometimes cold. The Surveyor asked if food being served cold was a frequent occurrence. Resident #6 stated, Sometimes. 2. On 10/02/23 at 12:14 PM, the Surveyor asked Resident #73 if the food being served was satisfactory. Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-05 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure pureed food items were blended to a smooth, lump free consistency to minimize the risk of choking or other complications for those residents who required pureed diets for 2 of 2 meals observed. The failed practice had the potential to affect 4 residents who received pureed diets as documented on a list provided by the Dietary District Manager on 10/03/23. The findings are: 1. On 10/02/23 at 12:07 PM, the following observations were made on the steam table: a. A pan of pureed brussels sprouts. The consistency of the pureed brussels sprouts was runny, not formed and was not smooth. There were pieces of brussels sprouts in the mixture. b. A pan pf pureed baked herb roasted chicken. The consistency was runny, not formed and not smooth. There were pieces of chicken visible in the mixture. At 1:35 PM, the Surveyor asked the Dietary Supervisor and the Dietary District Manger to describe the consistency of the pureed food items served to the residents on pureed diets. The Dietary Supervisor stated, Pureed brussels sprouts was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-05 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — patternMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure call devices were in reach for 1 (Resident #65) of 6 (Residents #10, #21, #24, #49, #69 and #71) sampled residents who were bedbound as documented on a list provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/05/23 at 9:27 AM. The findings are: On 10/02/23 at 10:20 AM, Resident #65 was lying in bed with the call device lying on the floor by the head of the bed. The Surveyor asked if he was able to get out of bed unassisted. Resident #65 indicated that he could not. On 10/02/23 at 3:34 PM, Resident #65 was lying in bed. The call device was lying on the floor by the head of the bed. On 10/03/23 at 9:28 AM and 12:57 PM, Resident #65 was lying in bed. The call device was lying on the floor by the head of the bed. On 10/04/23 at 3:22 PM, Resident #65 was lying in bed. The call device was lying on the floor by the head of the bed. Resident #65 was unable to locate the call device. On 10/04/23 at 3:28 PM, CNA #3 picked the call device up from the floor and attached it to the bed near Resident #65, and confirmed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-05 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — patternMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure access hatches located in resident rooms were secured in 1 (Resident room [ROOM NUMBER]) of 12 (Resident Rooms #301, #302, #303, #304, #305, #306, #308, #309, #310, #311, #312 and #314) Resident Rooms on the 300 Hall. The findings are: On 10/02/23 at 3:13 PM, 10/3/23 at 9:20 AM, and 10/4/23 at 3:31 PM observed in room [ROOM NUMBER] a gray access hatch that was partly opened above a resident bed. There was a white pipe with a valve surrounded by a fibrous yellow material behind the hatch. Two residents were in the room. During interview on 10/04/23 at 3:35 PM, the Maintenance Director confirmed the pipe and valve in room [ROOM NUMBER] was the insulated water shut-off for the sprinkler system. On 10/05/23 at 10:51 AM Nurse Consultant #2 provided a document titled, Preventative Maintenance Program. It documented, .The Maintenance Director shall assess all aspects of the physical plant to determine if Preventive Maintenance (PM) is…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-10-05 · 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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify a family member of a Care Plan meeting for one (Resident #1) of 18 (Residents #1, #6, #12, #21, #29, #32, #33, #40, #41, #44, #47, #51, #64, #66, #67, #69, #73 and #276) sampled residents. The findings are: Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/28/23 documented the resident was severely cognitively impaired. Review of a Care Plan with a revision date of 04/24/21 noted Resident #1 was severely impaired in cognitive function related to diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and needs assistance with all decision making. During an interview on 10/02/23 at 3:28 PM, Resident #1's family member stated, I have never come to a care plan meeting. I've never received any notification or been offered to come to a care plan meeting. During an interview on 10/04/23 at 9:15 AM, the Social Services Director said a letter is mailed out about a week and a half before the meeting and the family member is called to remind them. The Social Services Director said a template is used 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.
“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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to THE SPRINGS ARKANSAS — 26 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 | 3.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 3.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.8 | -1.8 vs chain |
The other 25 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.4★, 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BLUE RIVER HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2021 |
| BARO, MOUSSA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/10/2023 |
| THESSING, JEFFREY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2021 |
| VALLEY REALTY HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2021 |
| GUTMAN, ISAAC | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2021 |
| HERZBERG, CHAIM | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2021 |
| HOFFMAN, ALEXANDER | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2021 |
| TAUB, JACOB | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2021 |
| TEMPLER, DAVID | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/01/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
This home reported $3.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 34% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in AR
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Arkansas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 045431. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-15, 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.