The Springs Magnolia
2642 North Dudney Road, Magnolia, AR 71753 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 140 certified beds · (870) 234-7000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- 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
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (35% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0602), cited Sep 2023
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (19) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- about 29% 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) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 5 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 | 4.3% | 9.5% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.0% | 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 | 1.7% | 1.4% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 1.3% | 0.1% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 1.6% | 3.9% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.2% | 10.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.0% | 21.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.8% | 4.2% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 5.4% | 13.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.6% | 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 | 91.3% | 77.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 11.8% | 24.1% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 18.7% | 12.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.74 | 2.01 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.68 | 2.13 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Met the expected recovery: 58.3% 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 24 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 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 24% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 18% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.9%CMS range 7.2–15.2 | 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 | 58.3% | 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 | 54.2% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 54.2% | 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 | 96.8% | 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 | 3.2% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 3.2% | 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 | 8.2%CMS range 4.5–17.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.96 | 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 140 beds and averages 77.2 residents a day — about 55% occupied, or roughly 63 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.49 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.40 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.19 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.00 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.70 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.43 to 0.32 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 35% is below 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.
19 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 9 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-28 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record review, facility document review, facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide the appropriate treatment with enteral nutrition for one (Resident #11) of one resident reviewed for Medication Administration through a Percutaneous feeding tube (PEG).Based on observations, record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide the appropriate services and treatment to prevent complications for one (Resident #11) of one resident reviewed for medication administration through a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube. The findings include: During a medication administration observation on 08/27/2025 at 10:10 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 prepared medications and a tube feeding for Resident #11. LPN #3 administered the medications followed by the tube feeding, then flushed with water after the administrations. LPN #3 did not flush with water prior to the medication or tube feeding. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/01/2025,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-06-18 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, interviews, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility did not ensure incontinence care was provided in a manner that promoted cleanliness, prevented odor, and/or infections for one (Resident #1) of one resident, observed for incontinence care technique and hygiene care. The findings include: During an observation on 06/17/2025 at 8:30 AM, this surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 assist Resident #1, who had been incontinent of bladder, onto the toilet. The resident ' s pants and wheelchair were visibly wet. CNA #1 provided incontinence care from behind Resident #1, but did not clean the resident ' s entire perineal area, buttocks, or thighs, prior to application of a new brief. CNA #1 placed Resident #1 back into the visibly wet wheelchair, without cleaning it. A review of Resident #1 ' s admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date of 04/08/2025, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 08, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS also 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 · Dcited before2025-06-18 · 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 observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility did not ensure proper hand hygiene and infection control procedures were used while incontinence care was being provided to one (Resident #1) of one resident observed for incontinence care technique and hygiene care. The findings include: During an observation on 06/17/2025 at 8:30 AM, this surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 pushing Resident #1 in a wheelchair to the resident's bathroom to assist with toileting. This surveyor noted CNA #1 did not use hand hygiene prior to or after assisting Resident #1 with toileting. After providing care to Resident #1, CNA #1 retrieved a pair of pants from the resident's closet, without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene. CNA #1 did not like the choice of pants and returned to the closet to get a second pair of pants, still wearing the same dirty gloves. The CNA then removed Resident #1 ' s wet pants and discarded them onto the floor. CNA #1 assisted the resident with dressing, adjusted the resident's jacket, 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 · Ecited before2024-06-20 · 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
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 (Residents #23 and #49) did not have medications stored at the bedside. The findings are: 1. Review of Resident #23's Medical Diagnosis sheet revealed the resident had diagnoses of heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and type II diabetes mellitus. a. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/16/2024 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 (8-12 indicates moderate cognitive impairment). b. On 06/17/2024 at 11:12 AM, the Surveyor observed Resident #23 with a 32 ounce open bottle of 0.91% alcohol sitting on the floor, on the left side of the bed. Resident #23 confirmed, I brought the alcohol from home to rub on my knee. c. On 06/17/2024 at 11:30 AM, the Surveyor observed a 32 ounce bottle of 0.91% alcohol was resting on the floor to the right of Resident #23's feet. d. On 06/17/2024 at 12:58 PM, during a concurrent observation and interview, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 accompanied the Surveyor to Resident #23's room.…
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 before2024-06-20 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure canned goods were dent free and cleaning supplies were not setting on the puree prep table while food was being prepared. The findings are: 1. On 06/17/2024 at 10:33 AM, the Surveyor observed one 7 pound can of vanilla pudding had a dent next to the top seal. 2. On 06/18/2024 at 10:50 AM, the Surveyor observed a red bucket containing greyish colored water with small bubbles on the surface was sitting in the top right corner of the puree prep table. There were food items on the tabletop with the red bucket. Dietary Aide #8 was pureeing food with the red bucket on the tabletop. The Dietary Manager confirmed the bucket contained sanitizer and water for cleaning the tabletops, and the bucket should be on a bottom shelf below food items. 3. On 06/18/2024 at 11:03 AM, during an interview, the Dietary Manager confirmed food items in cans are to be dent free and to be placed on the dented can shelf. 4. On 06/18/2024 at 1:57 PM, review of the policy provided by the Administrator for Safe Storage of Food showed,…
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 · D2024-06-20 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
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 notify the proper state authority when they became aware of a new diagnosis of mental illness for 1 (Resident #53) sampled Resident. The findings include: Review of the Medical Diagnosis section in the facility computer software system revealed Resident #53 had a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, entered into the system on 06/12/2023, and anxiety disorder. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date of 05/28/2024 revealed Resident #53 was unable to complete the Brief Interview of Mental Status and had a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Review of a Care Plan for Resident #53, revision date 03/05/2024, documented Resident #53 had the potential for nutritional deficits related to vitamin deficiency, diabetes mellitus type 2, bipolar disorder, anxiety, and dementia. On 06/18/2024 at 1:20 PM, the Surveyor was provided Resident #53's Level 1 Preadmission Screen for major mental Conditions/Intellectual Disabilities and Related Conditions dated 07/22/2022 that documented 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 · D2024-06-20 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the treatment cart used to store medication was locked when unattended by staff. The findings include: On 06/19/2024 at 3:07 PM, the Surveyor observed an unattended unlocked treatment cart on the secured unit in the facility. On 06/19/2024 at 3:08 PM, during an interview, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #7 voiced the treatment cart did not lock and the medication on the cart could be potentially harmful if a resident gained access to them. On 06/19/2024 at 3:20 PM, the Administrator voiced the treatment cart should be locked to ensure the residents do not get into the cart and get the medications and it was more likely to occur on the secure unit. On 06/19/2024 at 3:37 PM, review of a policy titled, Safety and Supervision of Residents, that documented, Our facility strives to make the environment as free from accident hazards as possible. Resident safety and supervision and assistance to prevent accidents are facility-wide priorities .
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-20 · 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 observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff provided proper hand hygiene while providing incontinent care to 1 (Resident #61) to prevent the risk of cross contamination. The findings are: 1. On 06/19/2024 at 2:10 PM, the Surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #6 performing hand hygiene and putting on gloves. CNA #6 pulled down the front of Resident #61's brief and reached the right hand into the bag of clean wipes and wiped the front of Resident #61's peri area with the right hand. 2. On 06/19/2024 at 2:15 PM, during the observation, Resident #61 was turned onto the left side by CNA #5. CNA #6 changed gloves and performed hand hygiene. CNA #6 then continued to use the right hand to get clean wipes from a clear bag, and wipe stool from the resident using the same right hand. CNA #6 was observed twice reaching into the clean bag of wipes with the left hand, then place the wipe into the right hand and wipe the resident while resting the left hand on Resident #61's right hip without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene. 3. On…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-02-13 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow a Resident ' s care plan concerning transfer, resulting in a fall for one (Resident (R) #1) of three (R #1, #2 and #3) sampled residents. The findings are: R #1 had diagnoses of End stage renal disease and Dependence on dialysis. The Quarterly minimum data set [MDS] with an assessment reference date [ARD] of 01/04/24 documented a brief interview of mental status [BIMS] of 14 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact). The admission MDS with an ARD of 10/04/2023 documented Resident #1 was dependent on staff for transfers. R#1's care plan initiated 09/28/2023 documented, .Transfers: The resident requires mechanical lift/staff assistance for transfers resident is totally dependent on staff for transfers .Resident requires 2 person assist with transfers. An in-service dated 03/24/2023 which included .Transferring: Gait Belt, Mechanical Lift, Sit to Stand lift was signed by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 and CNA #2 as having attended. On…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-09-15 · tag F0602 — failed to protect residents from theft of their belongings — patternProtect each resident from the wrongful use of the resident's belongings or money.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure receipts were filed for charges imposed by the facility for 6 (Residents #1, #5, #6, #7, #8 and #9) of 6 case mix residents. The findings are: 1. On 09/14/23 at 11:36 AM, Resident #1's Quarterly Trust Fund Statement for June 2023 to September 2023 noted Resident #1 spent $220.00 on 06/06/23, $75.00 on 06/09/23, $150.00 on 06/20/23, $150.00 on 07/14/23, $200.00 on 07/14/23, $50.00 on 08/02/23 (Total $845.00) on Personal Needs Items. No receipts were available for the above withdrawals. 2. On 09/14/23 at 11:40 AM, Resident 5's Quarterly Trust Fund Statement for June 2023 to September 2023 noted Resident #5 spent $150.00 on 06/06/23, $70.00 on 06/20/23, $75.00 on 06/23/23, $100.00 on 07/03/23, and $100.00 on 07/14/23 (Total of $495.00) on Personal Needs Items. No receipts were available for the above withdrawals. 3. On 09/14/23 at 11:50 A.M. Resident #6's Quarterly Trust Fund Statement for June 2023 to September 2023 noted Resident #6 spent $75.00 on 06/09/23, $70.00 on 06/16/23, $100.00 on 07/11/23, $200.00 on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 9 citations
- Potential for harm · E2023-09-15 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on an interview and record review, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate for misappropriation of funds for 6 (Residents #1, #5, #6, #7, #8 and #9) of 6 case mix residents after the facility's Business Office Manager was identified as stealing funds from resident accounts. The findings are: 1. On 09/13/23 at 1:39 PM, the Regional Business Office Manager stated the facility had identified that the facility Business Office Manager was using the residents debit cards and getting cash and buying items online. This affected two residents and a report was completed on both and was sent to the Office of Long Term Care. The police have an ongoing investigation. 2. On 09/14/23 at 11:34 AM, the Surveyor asked the Administrator if a complete audit was done after the misappropriation of funds was identified. She stated she was told a complete audit was done by the Regional Business Office Manager and that she audited the credit card users, and trust funds. 3. On 09/14/23 at 11:43 AM, the Regional Business Office Manager stated that after the incident they did a review for each…
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 before2023-06-08 · 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 food items stored in the refrigerator were covered and dated, dietary staff washed their hands when contaminated to decrease the potential for food borne illness for residents receiving food from 1 of 1 kitchen, 2 of 2 ice machine were maintained in a clean and sanitary condition and 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. The failed practices had the potential to affect 71 residents who received meals from the kitchen (total census: 72) as documented on a list provided by the Dietary Supervisor on 06/06/23 at 8:00 AM. The findings are: 1. On 06/05/23 at 9:34 AM, an opened box of sausage was stored on a shelf in the walk-in refrigerator with no open date on the box. 2. On 06/05/23 at 9:40 AM, the following food items were stored on a shelf in the walk-in freezer with no open dates. a. A box of mixed vegetables b. A box of biscuits c. A box of pancakes d. A box of beef patties e. There…
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 · E2023-06-08 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — patternProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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 water was accessible and provided based on physician orders for 1 (Resident #10) of 2 (#10 and #63) sampled residents. This failed practice had the potential to affect 2 residents who are on Therapeutic Orders for hydration according to a list provided by the Administrator on 06/08/23 at 9:14 AM. The findings are: 1. Resident #10 Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date of 3/15/23 documented no issues with swallowing. 2. The Care Plan with an initiation date of 06/15/22 documented, Offer water routinely as directed and PRN [as needed] during care, btw [between] meals and at night while awake. 3. The Physician Order with a start date of 04/21/23 documented, Encourage fluid intake q [every] hour due to increased BUN [Blood Urea Nitrogen]. 4. On 06/05/23 at 10:59 AM, Resident #10 was lying in his bed. There was no water pitcher at his bedside. 5. On 06/05/23 at 2:45 PM, Resident #10 was lying in his bed. There was no water pitcher at his bedside. 6. On 06/06/23 at 8:01 AM, there was no water…
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 · E2023-06-08 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure posting of cautionary and safety signs for resident rooms indicating the use of oxygen in the facility for 2 (Residents #3 and #33) of 4 (#3, #33, #38 and #60) sampled residents who use oxygen, as documented on lists provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/07/23 at 3:26 PM. The findings are: 1. Resident #3 was readmitted on [DATE] and had a diagnosis of Fracture of the left femur. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 04/18/23 documented the resident scored 12 (8-12 indicates moderate impairment) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). a. The Physician Order with a start date of 01/20/23 documented, Oxygen two liters per minute every 1 hour as needed for Shortness of Breath Oxygen @ [at] 2 Liters PRN [as needed] may remove per self for ADL's [Activities of Daily Living] . b. On 06/05/23 at 10:11 AM, Resident #3 was lying in her bed alert and awake, with her oxygen on per nasal…
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 before2023-06-08 · 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
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the narcotics that had been discontinued were properly stored and locked in a permanently affixed compartment prior to being sent back to the state for destruction. The failed practice has the potential to affect all ambulatory residents in the facility. a. On 06/08/23 the Surveyor asked the Director of Nursing (DON), Where do you store the discontinued narcotics before returning them to the State? She reached under her desk and pulled a paste board box out and handed it to the Surveyor. Inside the box was a bottle of clear liquid labeled Hydrocodone 7.5mg/325mg (milligrams) with a resident's name on it. There were 5 ounces of liquid in the bottle. The Surveyor asked, Do you have a cabinet, safe or file cabinet to store the narcotics in before they are sent in? The DON stated, No. The Surveyor asked, Do you know where the previous DON stored the narcotics? The DON stated, No, I don't. The Surveyor asked, How many keys are there to this office? The DON stated, I'm not sure the Administrator has one. The Surveyor asked,…
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 · E2023-06-08 · 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. This failed practice had the potential to affect 12 residents who received mechanical soft diets, and 6 residents who received pureed diets from the kitchen according to a list provided by the Dietary Supervisor on 06/06/23. The findings are: a. The facility menu for lunch l provided by the Dietary Supervisor on 06/06/23 at 8:00 AM, documented that each resident who received mechanical soft diets were to receive a #10 scoop (3 ounces) of herb roasted chicken and the residents who received pureed diets received 4 ounces (1/2 cup) of creamy garlic noodles. b. On 06/05/22 at 10:29 AM, Dietary Employee (DE) #1 placed 11 servings of fried chicken tenders into a blender instead of 24 chicken tenders. She grounded them, poured them into a pan and placed the pan in the oven. At 11:58 AM, DE #1 used a #10 scoop (3 ounce) and served a half (½) a portion of ground chicken…
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 · E2023-06-08 · 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 the pureed food items were blended to a smooth, lump free consistency to minimize the risk of choking or other complications for residents who required pureed diets for 1 of 1 meal observed. The failed practice had the potential to affect 6 residents who received pureed diets as documented on the list provided by the Food Service Supervisor on 06/06/23. The findings are: 1. On 06/05/23 at 10:36 AM, Dietary Employee (DE) #1 pureed the chicken tenders and the baked chicken to be served to the residents on pureed diets. At 10:48 AM, the consistency of the pureed chicken was lumpy. 2. On 06/05/23 at 11:49 AM, DE #3 pureed the hamburger patties from the grill with a temperature of 133 degrees Fahrenheit. The consistency of the pureed hamburger patties was runny and lumpy, with pieces of meat visible in the mixture. 3. On 06/05/23 at 11:55 AM, the pureed bread was served to the residents on pureed diets. The consistency of the pureed bread was lumpy. The Surveyor asked DE #3 to describe the consistency of the pureed…
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 · E2023-06-08 · 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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the call light system on the 200 Hall was functioning properly for 1 resident (Resident #54) of 3 (#6, #54 and #62) sampled residents who were able to use a call light indicated by a list provided by the Administrator on 06/08/23 at 9:14 AM. This failed practice had the potential to affect 14 residents who reside in 200 Hall. The findings are: a. On 06/05/23 at 2:52 PM, the Surveyor entered Resident #54's room. He asked the Surveyor to get him something to drink. The Surveyor instructed him to push his call light. Resident #54 stated, I've been pushing it. He pushed the call light in front of the Surveyor, and it did not work. Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) #2 was alerted. She went into the room and attempted to get the call light to work and stated, It's not working, I'll fix it. b. On 06/06/23 at 8:08 AM, the Surveyor entered Resident #54's room. The Surveyor asked Resident #54 to push the call light and it did not work. CNA #2 was notified, and she moved the non-working light to the other bed…
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 · D2023-06-08 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure advanced directive information was accurately documented in the medical record to ensure the resident's wishes would be carried out in the event of cardiopulmonary arrest for 1 resident (Resident #30) of 3 (#30, #31 and #224) sampled residents that were admitted in the last 3 months and had signed a document stating Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). This failed practice had the potential to affect all 6 residents in the facility as documented on list provided by Director of Nursing (DON) on [DATE] at 3:26 PM. The findings are: 1. Resident #30 was admitted on [DATE] and had diagnoses of Heart Failure, Depression and Diabetes Mellitus. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of [DATE] documented a score of 15 (13-15 indicates cognitively Intact) on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). a. Resident #30's Resuscitation Designation Order dated [DATE] documented, I do not want CPR [Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation]. Signed by…
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 | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.8 | +0.2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| WHITE RIVER HEALTHCARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2021 |
| FERGUSON, CLAY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2021 |
| LOVE, AMANDA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/16/2022 |
| KURZ, CHAIM | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/26/2025 |
| AJ-ARP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
| MAGNOLIA REALTY HOLDINGS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2021 |
| PALM TREE HC ARKANSAS LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
| GUTMAN, ISAAC | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
| HOFFMAN, ALEXANDER | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
| HOFFMAN, HELEN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
| KURZ, SOLOMON | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
| TAUB, JACOB | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 12 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.
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 $2.2M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 29% 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 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 045135. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-28, 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.