Trinity Village Medical Center
6400 Trinity Drive, Pine Bluff, AR 71603 · Non profit - Corporation · 94 certified beds · (870) 879-3117 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- a high number of inspection citations overall (31) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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 2025-10 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 1 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 5.5% | 9.5% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.5% | 4.3% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 0.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.7% | 1.2% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 1.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.3% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.7% | 10.1% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.0% | 21.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.7% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.4% | 4.2% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 15.5% | 13.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 2.9% | 10.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.3% | 1.3% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 87.7% | 77.7% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 31.4% | 24.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 17.2% | 12.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.52 | 2.01 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.85 | 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.
26.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 61 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 55.4% 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 65 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 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 36% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 26.1%CMS range 18.7–36.4 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.4%CMS range 7.6–15.2 | 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 | 55.4% | 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 | 69.2% | 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 | 50.8% | 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 | 95.7% | 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 | 97.4% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 6.4% | 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 | 6.9%CMS range 3.9–11.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.06 | 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 94 beds and averages 75.1 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 19 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 4.18 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.34 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.50 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 3.56 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.44 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.37 to 0.26 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 46% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
31 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 21 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-07-24 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Care Plans were updated for two (Resident #11 and Resident #12) of two residents reviewed for Care Plan accuracy. The findings include: Resident #11 A review of an admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident #11 on 01/23/2017, with diagnoses which included stroke. A review of Bed Rail Assessments dated 01/21/2025 and 05/15/2025 indicated Resident #11 had expressed a desire to have siderails/assist bar for safety and/or comfort. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/15/2025, revealed Resident #11 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS did not indicate the resident used side rails. A review of Resident #11’s Care Plan, revised on 02/24/2025, did not indicate the resident used bed rails. During an observation on 07/22/2025 at 10:16AM, Resident #11 was lying in bed with eyes closed. Resident #11’s bed was in lowest position with 1/4 sized rails up 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 · Ecited before2025-07-24 · 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, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure food stored in the freezer and dry storage area were covered or sealed, one of one ice scoop holder was maintained in a sanitary manner, and dietary staff washed their hands between dirty and clean tasks and before handling clean equipment for one of one meal observed. The findings include: During an observation and interview on 7/23/25 at 9:46 AM, loose coffee filters were observed on top of a bag on the tea maker, which exposed them to air and potential pests. Dietary [NAME] (DC) #8 stated they were supposed to be in a sealed bag. During an observation and interview on 7/23/25 at 9:53 AM, DC #8 was observed wearing gloves on her hands when she turned off the stove, which contaminated the gloves. Without changing gloves and washing her hands, she used her gloved hand to sprinkle shredded cheese on top of the pasta to be served to the residents for lunch. DC #8 stated that it was cross contamination, and she should have removed her gloves and washed her hands. During a concurrent observation…
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 before2025-07-24 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record reviews, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a smoking assessment was completed for one (Resident #12) of two residents reviewed for smoking safety. The findings include: A review of Resident #12’s admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 06/30/2025, with diagnoses which included lung cancer. A review of Resident #12’s admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 07/02/2025, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. A review of Resident #12’s Care Plan, revised on 07/22/2025, indicated the resident had alteration in comfort related to lung cancer, depression, and generalized pain. The resident’s Care Plan revealed they required supervision or touching assistance to walk 10 feet. Resident #12’s Care Plan did not indicate the resident smoked tobacco products. A review of Resident #12’s Electronic Medical Record, on 07/23/2025 at 10:26 AM, revealed a smoking assessment had not been completed for the resident. During an…
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 before2025-07-24 · 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, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) were followed during high contact care to prevent the risk of cross contamination and infection for one (Resident #41) of one resident observed. Specifically, nursing staff failed to wear a gown while administering medication, feeding, and flushing a gastrostomy tube with water. The findings include: A review of a Physician Order for Resident #41, dated 03/21/2022, revealed a medication for inflammation of the stomach was to be given through [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy] PEG tube. A review of a Physician Order for Resident #41, dated 05/06/2022, revealed a [nothing by mouth] NPO diet. A review of a Physician Order for Resident #41, dated 07/26/2023, revealed an order for water flushes before and after medications and feedings. A review of a Physician Order for Resident #41, dated 04/15/2025, revealed Resident #41 received supplemental feedings four times a day. A review of Resident #41’s Care Plan with a revision date of 02/05/2025,…
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 · E2025-01-16 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — patternKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure the personal and medical information was protected for 3 (Resident #1, #40, #236) of 4 sampled residents potentially violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA). The findings include: 1. A review of the plan of care for Resident #236 revealed the resident had an admission date of 01/14/2025. a. On 01/15/25 at 08:39 AM, this surveyor observed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 enter Resident #236's room to administer medication. LPN #2 turned her back to the door. This surveyor observed the open unlocked laptop, on top of the medication cart in the hallway, open displaying Resident #236 ' s personal and medical information including name, date of birth , code status, and physician's orders. b. On 01/15/25 at 08:56 AM, LPN #2 stated, I did not lock or close the laptop. I waited for the computer to timeout. 2. A review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/29/2024 revealed Resident #40 had a Brief…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-01-16 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure care plans were revised to reflect residents' most recent care needs for 2 (Residents #24 and #45) of 18 sampled residents whose care plans were reviewed. The findings are: 1. Resident #24 had diagnoses of diabetes mellitus with foot ulcer, adjustment disorder with depressed mood and myocardial infarction. The annual minimum data set (MDS) with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 10/18/24 indicated Resident #24 had a brief interview of mental status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated the resident had no impairment to upper or lower extremities, used a wheelchair for ambulation, was dependent on staff for toileting, dressing and personal hygiene, and required partial assistance with transfers from bed to chair and back and had no falls since previous assessment. On 01/13/25 at 12:36 PM a review of the electronic health record (EHR) revealed a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-01-16 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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 the use of a physical restraint was used to treat a resident's medical symptoms, and was not being used for staff convenience for 1 (Resident #28) of 2 sampled residents (Residents #1 and #28) reviewed for physical restraint use and failed to perform a side rail assessment prior to installing side rails for 2 (Residents #1 and #28) of 2 (Residents #1 and #28) sampled residents reviewed for side rail use. The findings are: 1. Resident #28 had diagnoses of gastrostomy and pressure ulcer to sacral region. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with and Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/29/24 indicated a staff assessment of mental status (SAMS) of severely impaired. Resident #28 had an impairment of both upper and lower extremities, was non- ambulatory, and was totally dependent on staff for bed mobility, turning, positioning and transfers. The MDS indicated Resident #28 has had no falls since entry, reentry, or prior to assessment and bd side rails were not used. Physician orders for January 2025 did not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-01-16 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was not greater than 5%. The Medication error occurred with 2 (Resident #44, #6) of 4 sampled residents observed for medication administration. Medication error rate was calculated at 7.14%. The findings include: 1. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/11/2024 revealed Resident #44 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating cognitively intact. a. A review of the plan of care for Resident #44 (revision date 01/18/2023) revealed Resident #44 had alteration in cardiovascular/circulatory function related to hypertension (high blood pressure) and hyperlipidemia (abnormally high levels of fats in the blood). b. A review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed Resident #44 had an order for [calcium channel blocker medication name], a medication used to treat hypertension and chest pain, 90 milligrams (MG) of 1 tablet by mouth 1 time a day. c. On 01/15/25 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 · E2025-01-16 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the facility was free of significant medication errors for 1 (Resident #44) of 1 sampled resident who was administered the wrong dose of [calcium channel blocker medication name] for the entire month of January 2025 and failed to ensure [long acting insulin name] insulin was not administered past 28 days of use for 1 (Resident #66) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for insulin use. The findings include: 1. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/11/2024 revealed Resident #44 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating cognitively intact. A review of the plan of care for Resident #44 (revision date 01/18/2023) revealed Resident #44 had alterations in cardiovascular/circulatory function related to hypertension (high blood pressure) and hyperlipidemia (abnormally high levels of fats in the blood). A review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) Resident #44 revealed an order for [calcium channel…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-01-16 · 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 observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications and biologics were securely stored away at all times to prevent unauthorized individuals from potentially gaining access to the medication and/or biologics and failed to discard insulin after 28 days in use for 1 (Resident #66) 1 sampled resident reviewed for [long-acting insulin name] insulin use. The findings include: 1. On 01/15/25 at 08:39 AM, this surveyor observed Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 enter a resident's room to administer medication. This surveyor noted LPN #2 turned her back to the unlocked medication cart. On 01/15/25 at 08:56 AM, LPN #2 stated, I did not lock the medication cart. I should have. On 01/15/25 at 07:14 PM, this surveyor observed LPN #5 enter a resident's room to administer medication. This surveyor noted LPN #5 turned her back to the unlocked medication cart. This surveyor also observed LPN #5 walk down the hall while the medication cart remained unlocked. On 01/15/25 at 07:20 PM, LPN #5 stated she did not close or lock 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.
Show the remaining 21 citations
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-01-16 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure meals were prepared and served according to the planned written menu to meet the nutritional needs of the residents for 1 of 1 meal observed. The findings are: 1. The 1/13/25 Resident meal of the month lunch menu documented the residents who received regular diets, mechanical soft diets, and residents who received chopped diets were to receive 2 slices of pizza. Residents who required pureed diets were to receive 2 #8 scoops (1 cup of pureed pizza and residents on mechanical soft diets were to receive ground pizza. 2. On 1/13/25 at 11:42 AM, during the lunch meal preparation, Dietary [NAME] (DC) #10 placed 6 slices of pepperoni pizza on a pan liner on top of the counter and sliced them into squares. DC #10 then transferred the squares pieces into a pan and stated she did it for the residents who received chopped meat. DC #10 placed the pan in the oven to be served to the residents who received chopped diets, instead of total of 12 slices of chopped pepperoni pizza since the menu indicated 2 slices of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-01-16 · 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, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure food items in the refrigerator, freezer and storage room were covered, and sealed; leftovers meat products were used in a manner to maintain food quality; dented cans were promptly removed from stock; 1 of 2 ice machines was maintained in clean and sanitary condition; dietary staff washed their hands before handling food or clean equipment; ceiling tiles, air vents, dish washer wall , kitchen door frames were free of, debris, dirt, rust, stains, baseboards were secured, and hot food items were maintained at temperature of 135 degrees or above for 1 of 1 meal observed. The Findings are: 1. On 1/13/25 at 8:41 AM, the following observations were made in the kitchen areas. a. A bag of coffee filters with loose coffee in it to be brewed was on the counter by the coffee machine. b. An opened bag of pizza was on the counter by the steam table. The bag was not sealed. c. An opened box of apple pie was on top of the plate warmer. The box was not covered. 2. On 1/13/25 at 8:43 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 · Ecited before2025-01-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 the facility failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were being followed to prevent the spread of possible infection for one (Resident #28) of four sampled residents who were on EBP. The findings are: Resident # 28 had diagnoses of gastrostomy, cerebral infarction, bipolar disorder, diabetes mellitus type 2, and Alzheimer's disease. The review of Physician Orders for January 2025 did not indicate an order for enhanced barrier precautions. On 01/13/2025 at 9:12 AM, EBP signage was observed on Resident #28's door and a stocked personal protective equipment (PPE) cart was on Resident 28's side of the room. On 01/13/25 at 09:13 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #3 was observed at Resident #28's bedside, preforming incontinent care, without PPE on. When asked, CNA #3 stated she had changed the resident without donning PPE. On 01/13/2025 at 1:22 PM, Hospice CNA #4 was observed bathing Resident #28 without PPE on. When questioned, CNA #4, responded it was her first time working with the resident 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 · D2025-01-16 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure the care planned positioning device was in place to prevent further contracture for 1 of 1 sampled (Resident #27) resident reviewed for positioning. The findings include: A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/17/2024 revealed Resident #27 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 that indicated cognitively intact. A review of a plan of care for Resident #27 (revision date 01/04/2023) revealed Resident #27 had an Activities of Daily Living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to cerebrovascular accident (CVA) with left non-dominant side. An intervention in place noted place carrot in left hand. On 01/13/25 at 10:51 AM, this surveyor observed contracture to Resident #27's hand with no positioning device in place and noted a hand roll on the nightstand. Resident #27 stated the facility used to place a carrot in each hand, but the resident did not know what happened to them. On 01/14/25 at 09:07 AM,…
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 · D2025-01-16 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure gradual psychotropic (anti-anxiety) dose reductions (GDR) were attempted in the absence of a physician's documented evaluation of the specific risks versus benefits of continuing the as needed (PRN) medication past 14 days and a documented explanation as to why a dose reduction attempt would be contraindicated, in order to ascertain the smallest effective dose and minimize the potential for adverse drug effects for 1 (Resident #27) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The findings include: A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/17/2024 revealed Resident #27 has a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated cognitively intact. A review of the plan of care for Resident #27 (revision date 04/05/2024) revealed Resident #27 used anti-anxiety medications. A review of the Note to Attending Physician/Prescriber printed date 08/25/2024 noted Resident #27 had an order for [benzodiazepine medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-01-16 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolatedEnsure 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 1 of 1 meal observed. The findings are. 1. On 1/13/25 at 11:22 AM, DC #7 used a 4-ounce spoon to put 9 servings of boiled, seasoned squash into a blender and poured the juice from the squash over it, covering the squash. As DC #7 began to puree the squash the consistency of the pureed squash was too runny. DC #7 added a cup of thickener and pureed it some more. At 11:23 AM, DC #7 poured the pureed squash into a pan, and placed it in a pan of hot water on the stove. The consistency was still runny. The pureed squash remained thin when it was served to the residents who required pureed diets. At 1:15 PM, DC #7 was interviewed and was asked if she could describe the consistency of the pureed squash served to the residents on pureed diets, and DC #7 stated she thought it was a little thin, and she should have added more thickener. 2. On 1/13/25 at 11:51…
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 before2024-07-18 · 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 dirty trash cans were stored away from the food storage racks; kitchen sink was free of leaks; the walk-in freezer floor was free of ice buildup; the ice machine and ice scoop were maintained in clean and sanitary conditions to prevent potential growth of harmful bacteria that could be transferred to the residents food; opened food items in the refrigerator, freezer and storage room were covered, sealed, and dated; and expired foods were promptly removed from stock to maintain freshness and prevent potential cross contamination; dietary staff practiced good hand hygiene to prevent potential cross contamination of food and clean dishes; and hot food item was maintained at the required temperature on the steam table and serving line to prevent potential foodborne illness. These failed practices had the potential to affect 75 residents who received meals from the kitchen (Total Census: 78), as documented on a list provided by the Dietary Manager on 07/17/2024 at 3:11 PM. The findings are: 1. On 07/15/2024 at 9:38 AM, 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 · E2024-07-18 · tag F0582 — patternGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
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 a refund was received by the resident or responsible party within 30 days from the date of discharge for 2 (Residents #230 and #231) sampled residents within 30 days from the date of discharge. The findings are: On [DATE] at 2:21 PM, during an interview with Business Office (BO) #12, the Surveyor requested the last 2 quarter bank statements for Resident #230 and Resident #231. The statements were provided showing Resident #230 had a balance of $1,510.87, and Resident #231 had a balance of $407.00, with no charges coming out of the accounts. On [DATE] at 03:20 PM, per record review Resident #231's medical record revealed the resident passed away in the facility on [DATE], and Resident #230 passed away in the facility on [DATE]. The Administrative Assistant was asked to provide documentation and proof that the facility had attempted to contact the family regarding the remaining funds. On [DATE] at 10:15 AM, the Surveyor met with BO…
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 before2024-07-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the G Hall shower room and the beauty shop were locked to prevent residents from being harmed from the ingestion of the chemicals present. The findings are: 1. On 07/15/2024 at 11:45 AM, while walking down the G Hall the surveyor observed the shower room door, near the common area, was slightly open. The surveyor observed open, uncapped gallon jugs of shampoo and personal cleanser. On 07/16/2024 at 2:03 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #14 accompanied the surveyor to the G Hall shower room and read from the personal cleanser, Keep out of reach of children. If swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center Immediately from the open gallon jug of personal Cleanser. CNA #14 confirmed residents are showered on G Hall, and it sits outside the E, F, and G Hall common area and a resident could come into the unlocked shower room and drink from the shampoo or personal cleaner jugs that do not have caps. 2. On 07/15/2024 at 11:52 AM, the surveyor walked into the unlocked beauty shop 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 · E2024-07-18 · 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
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was administered at the physician ordered rate to prevent respiratory complications for 2 (Residents #25 and #60) of 2 sampled residents who received oxygen. The findings are: 1. Review of the Medical Diagnosis noted Resident #60 had diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/11/2024 suggested a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMs) score of 12 (8-12 suggests moderate cognitive impairment). Section O0110, C1 shows the resident is on oxygen. Review of Resident #60's Order Summary Report noted an order for oxygen at 3 liters via nasal cannula related to shortness of breath. Review of Resident #60's Care Plan with a revision of 10/12/2023, revealed Resident #60 was to receive oxygen per doctor orders. On 07/15/2024 at 11:37 AM, during a concurrent observation and interview, Resident #60 was sitting in a wheelchair receiving 2 liters of oxygen.…
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 · E2024-07-18 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — patternEnsure 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
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff were trained on how to monitor residents on a high-risk medication (anticoagulants), Apixaban (Eliquis), for 1 (Resident #37) of 1 sampled resident. The findings are: Review of an admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident #37 on 01/06/2024. Review of the admission Record indicated Resident #37 had a diagnosis of unspecified atrial fibrillation. Review of the Physician's Orders revealed Resident #37 had an order for Sertraline HCl, an antidepressant which may cause you to bruise or bleed easily, with a start date of 02/24/2024, and Apixaban (Eliquis), an anticoagulant, related to atrial fibrillation, with a start date of 01/06/2024. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/29/2024 revealed Resident #37 had severe cognitive impairment per a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS). The resident was taking an antidepressant and anticoagulant medication. Review of Resident #37's Care Plan (initiated date 01/09/2024) revealed 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 · E2024-07-18 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — patternEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 show a monthly Medication Regimen Review was completed on a monthly basis as required for 4 (Residents #3, #24, #25, and #41) sampled residents. The findings are: 1. Review of Medical Diagnosis for Resident #41 noted the resident had diagnoses of respiratory failure, type II diabetes mellitus, and major depressive disorder. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/06/2024 suggested a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMs) score of 7 (0-7 suggests severe cognitive impairment). On 07/16/2024 at 2:54 PM, per review of the pharmacy consult notes, the following dates did not have Medication Regimen Review recommendations: 08/22/2023, 09/11/2023, 11/14/2023, 01/17/2024, 02/06/2024, and 04/15/2024. Per record review of the Director of Nursing's (DON) Medication Regimen Review binder on 07/17/2024 at 2:41 PM, there were no discrepancies for 05/01/2024, 06/02/2024 On 07/17/2024 at 3:51 PM, during an interview the Surveyor asked the Director of Nursing (DON) for…
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 before2024-07-18 · 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 medications were stored behind a locked door; medications were not left at the bedside for 2 (Resident #13 and Resident #56) of 2 residents reviewed for medication storage at the bedside; and narcotic medications were stored in a permanently affixed compartment to prevent the potential of misappropriation of resident property. The findings include: 1. On 07/15/2024 at 9:40 AM, the Surveyor observed an oxygen concentrator holding open a door to the Employee Training/Staff Development room. On entering the Surveyor observed betadine and Dyna-hex on the counter across the room, to the right of the sink, the unlocked upper cabinets contained multiple bottles of betadine, and 2 bottles of Dakins solution. There were 2 unlocked medication (med) carts resting against the right side of the room. The first unlocked med cart had the following medications in the drawers: a. 2 - tubes of wound and burn gel b. Hibiclens (used to clean the skin to prevent infection) c. 0.25% Sodium Hypochlorite Solution d. Dakins…
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 before2024-07-18 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — patternEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure meals were prepared and served according to the planned written menu to meet the nutritional needs of the residents for 1 of 1 meal observed. The failed practices had the potential to affect 11 residents who received pureed diets, and 6 residents who received mechanical soft diets from 1 of 1 kitchen according to a list provided by the Dietary Manager on 07/17/2024 at 3:11 PM. The findings are: 1. The 07/17/2024, the noon meal menu documented the residents who received pureed diets and mechanical soft diets were to receive 2 ounces (1/4 cup) of gravy, a #8 scoop (1/2 cup) of pureed cabbage and a #8 scoop (1/2 cup) of pureed apple cobbler. 2. On 07/17/2024 at 11:42 AM, Dietary [NAME] (DC) #19 placed 10 servings of cornbread into a blender, added 3 cartons of whole milk and pureed. At 11:44 AM, DC #19 poured the pureed cornbread into a pan and placed it in a pan of hot water on the stove to serve 11 residents on pureed diets. 3. On 07/17/2024 at 11:56 AM, Dietary [NAME] (DC) #19 used a #8 scoop to place…
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 before2024-07-18 · 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 1 of 1 meal observed. The failed practice had the potential to affect 11 residents who received pureed diet, as documented on the list provided by the Dietary Supervisor on 07/17/2024. The findings are: 1. On 07/17/2024 at 11:30 AM, Dietary [NAME] (DC) #19 placed 13 servings of polish sausage into a blender, added chicken broth and pureed. At 11:31 AM, DC #19 poured the pureed polish sausage into a pan and placed it in a pan of hot water on the stove. The consistency of the pureed polish sausage was lumpy and was not smooth. There were pieces of meat still visible in the mixture. 2. On 07/17/2024 at 11:42 AM, Dietary [NAME] (DC) #19 placed 10 servings of cornbread into a blender, added 3 cartons of whole milk and pureed. At 11:44 AM, DC #19 poured the pureed cornbread into a pan and placed it in a pan of hot water on the stove. The consistency 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 · E2024-07-18 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
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 the physician's plan of care for chopped meat was followed for 8 residents who had a physician's order for chopped meat diets. The failed practice had the potential to affect 8 residents who had physician orders for chopped meat diets (census of 78), according to a list provided by the Dietary Manager on 07/17/2024. The findings are. 1. On 07/17/2024 at 12:12 PM, when staff were preparing to serve lunch the meal from the steam table during kitchen observation, the kielbasa was not pre-chopped to serve to the eight residents who had physician orders for chopped meat. 2. On 07/17/2024 at 1:45 PM, three residents were served regular polish sausage with skin intact with the size ranging from 1 inch to 1.5 inches. The surveyor showed the Dietary Manager and Dietary [NAME] (DC) #19 the size of the chopped meat/entrée ranging from 1 inch to 1.5 inches served to three residents on regular chopped meat diets in the dining room. During the interview DC #19 confirmed that was the size she was cutting the meat.…
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 · E2024-07-18 · tag F0847 — patternInform resident or representatives choice to enter into binding arbitration agreement and right to refuse.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Binding Arbitration Agreement stated the resident or resident representative were not required to sign the binding arbitration agreement as a condition of admission or as a requirement to continue to receive care at the facility. The findings are: On 07/15/2024, the Director of Nursing (DON) provided a copy of the arbitration agreement the facility provided at admission. The document did not specify whether the resident or resident representative are not required to sign the binding arbitration agreement as a condition of admission to or as a requirement to continue to receive care at the facility. On 07/15/2024 at 10:40 AM, review of the Arbitration Agreement, the required wording of neither the resident nor his or her representative is required to sign an agreement for binding arbitration as a condition of admission to, or as a requirement to continue to receive care at the facility was not located within the document. On 07/15/2024 at 10:53 AM, the Social Worker confirmed families are told they can sign 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 · Ecited before2024-07-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 a water management program was put in place to prevent the growth of Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens in the water system or ways to intervene in the instance of a Legionella outbreak for 1 of 1 facility; failed to ensure enhanced barrier precautions were in place for 1 (Resident #29) of 1 sampled resident with a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube and open wound; failed to ensure proper hand hygiene during meal service to prevent cross contamination for 1 (Resident #15) to prevent cross contamination; failed to ensure upper dentures were stored in a closed container with denture cleaner to prevent infection, and germs for 1 (Resident #71); failed to ensure hand hygiene was performed to prevent infection, and cross contamination for 1 (Resident #277) of 2 sampled residents observed for perineal care (Resident #41 and Resident #277); and failed to ensure clean linens were properly stored as to not become contaminated prior to use by residents. The findings are: 1. 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 · Dcited before2024-07-18 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure interventions for a hand device was consistently used for 1 (Resident #39) of 1 sampled resident who had a hand contracture. The findings are: A review of Order Summary Report noted Resident #39 had hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side. A review of Resident #39's Physician's Orders revealed Resident #39 had an order to have a right palm guard to be worn during the day and taken off at night. May consult therapy if redness/irritation occurs. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/09/2024 revealed Resident #39 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The resident had upper and lower extremities impairment on one side and was not receiving active or passive range of motion nor splint or brace assistance. A review of Resident #39's Care Plan (revision date 06/13/2023) revealed Resident #39 had an Activity of Daily Living (ADL) with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-18 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure dental care was provided for 1 (Resident #71) of 1 sampled (Resident #71) to promote good oral hygiene. The findings are: 1. Review of Medical Diagnosis revealed Resident #71 had diagnoses of chronic kidney disease, dementia, and metabolic encephalopathy. 2. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/22/2024 suggested a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMs) score of 14 (13-15 suggest cognitively intact). Section GG0130 indicated the resident required set up assistance for oral care. 3. On 07/16/2024 at 8:49 AM, Resident #71 was observed riding a hand bike in the therapy room and smiling at the surveyor. The surveyor observed Resident #71's had an upper tooth on the right and left side of the mouth protruding out, and had noticeable yellowing teeth with a thick, white substance on the bottom teeth. 4. On 07/16/2024 at 3:40 PM, during an interview with Resident #71, the surveyor noted yellowing bottom teeth with a white milky film. Certified Nursing…
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 · D2024-07-18 · 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all bodily areas were cleansed during incontinent care to promote cleanliness and good personal hygiene to prevent the potential infection for 1 (Resident #277) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for incontinent care. The finding include: Review of Medical Diagnosis noted Resident #277 had hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side and dementia Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/03/2024 revealed Resident #277 had short-term and long-term memory problems. The resident was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Review of Resident #277's Care Plan (revision date 06/26/20234) revealed Resident #277 was high risk for falls related to gait/balance problems, incontinence, and unaware of safety needs. On 07/16/2024 at 1:25 PM, Resident #277 was incontinent of bowel and bladder. The Surveyor observed CNA #4 and #5 did not use proper technique while providing incontinence care and not enough supplies were used…
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| DUNN, VALERIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/02/2023 |
| ATKINSON, CATHERINE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/25/2024 |
| BROWN, LAUREL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 02/08/2022 |
| BROWN, THOMAS | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2022 |
| CARR, JACQUISUE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/27/2022 |
| CLEMENT, JOE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2018 |
| COSNER, ZACHARY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/27/2022 |
| CROMWELL, KAY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/27/2022 |
| HARDIN, BARRIE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2019 |
| HARRIS, DON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/27/2022 |
| HARRIS, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2013 |
| HOUSE, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2021 |
| MORGAN, CAPPI | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/25/2024 |
| POWELL, RON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2008 |
| SELF, SABRINA | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2021 |
| TROTTER, HENRY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/27/2022 |
| WHITAKER, DEBORAH | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2019 |
| TOLBERT, MARTY | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/24/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 21 rows in the source record cover these 18 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.
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 $182K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. 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 045438. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-24, 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.