The Green House Cottages of Southern Hills
701 South Main Street, Rison, AR 71665 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 106 certified beds · (870) 325-6202 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- 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
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $39,621 in federal fines (most recent 2024-04-30)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- about 65% 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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 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 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 | 9.7% | 9.5% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.2% | 4.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.6% | 0.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.2% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 1.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.3% | 3.9% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 11.2% | 10.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.5% | 21.7% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.1% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.8% | 4.2% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 10.7% | 13.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 0.0% | 10.9% | 17.1% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 27.3% | 77.7% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.7% | 24.1% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.8% | 12.5% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.07 | 2.01 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.20 | 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.
40.2% 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 73 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 73.5% 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 34 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 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 33% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% 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 | 40.2%CMS range 30.8–50.1 | 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 | 11.5%CMS range 7.0–17.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 73.5% | 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 | 70.6% | 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 | 58.8% | 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 | 90.6% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 1.9% | 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 | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.2%CMS range 4.0–12.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.58 | 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 106 beds and averages 81.8 residents a day — about 77% occupied, or roughly 24 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 5.06 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.31 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.72 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.56 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.27 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.37 to 0.17 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-04-30 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision was provided to prevent elopement for 1 (Resident #82) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for elopement. The lack of an effective monitoring plan resulted in Resident #82 eloping from the facility and being found walking in the grass on the side of a public highway, approximately 100 yards from the resident's residence. 1. Resident #82 followed two other residents out to the back patio for their smoke break and staff only checked on residents every 5 to 10 minutes when they were outside the residence. Resident #82 was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and had an admission Assessment which indicated the resident was at risk of wandering. On 04/23/2024, Resident #82 verbalized to staff that she lived close by and wanted to walk home. Staff were instructed to closely monitor the resident due to making that statement. At the time of the survey, there were 35 residents residing in the cottages…
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 before2025-08-07 · 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
Number of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident’s wheelchair was properly secured to ensure the resident was safely transported in the facility van for one (Resident #4) of one resident reviewed. The findings include: A review of a Police Incident Report Form indicated that near an address between [town name] and the facility, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 was driving the van with two passengers inside: the Activities Director (AD) and Resident #4. While traveling, the wheelchair Resident #4 was seated in suddenly rolled backwards. This caused Resident #4 to bump the back of their head. The resident was transported to the emergency room for evaluation and treatment. A review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 06/04/2025, revealed Resident #4 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS also indicated the resident had diagnoses which included fracture of unspecified part of thigh…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-04-30 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure (1) food preparation equipment was free of peeling and chipped paint to prevent potential food borne illness for resident who received meals from the kitchen in Cottage #6, (2) expired food items were promptly removed from stock to prevent potential food borne illness for residents who received meal trays from 7 of 7 kitchens, (3) foods stored in the freezer, refrigerator and dry storage area were covered, sealed, dated and were stored in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions for residents who received meals from the kitchen in Cottage #7, (4) that 1 of 7 ice scoop holder was maintained in a clean and sanitary condition to prevent potential contamination of residents' beverages for residents who received meals from the kitchen in Cottage #7, and dietary staff washed their hands before handling clean equipment to prevent potential food borne illness for residents who received meals from the kitchen in Cottage #2. The failed practices had the potential to affect 12 residents who receive meals…
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 · E2024-04-30 · 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were not left at the bedside for 2 (Residents #7 and #29) sampled residents. The findings are: 1. Resident #7 had diagnoses of dementia and pelvic/perineal pain. a. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 04/06/2024 documented Resident #7 scored 13 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact) on a Brief Interview for Mental Status. b. Resident #7 had a Physician's Order for Diclofenac Sodium External Gel 1 % to be applied as needed for localized pain. c. Resident #7's Care Plan documented that the resident has pelvic and perineal pain and included intervention as follows: administer pain medications as ordered/needed, notify MD/Practitioner if not effective, administer PRN (as needed) pain medications as ordered to alleviate pain or for breakthrough pain. d. On 04/22/2024 at 10:10 AM, the Surveyor observed a container of Diclofenac Sodium 1% in the Resident's bathroom on a shelf. e. On 04/22/2024 at 12:13 PM, the Surveyor observed a container of Diclofenac…
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 · E2024-04-30 · 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 residents who required pureed diets for 2 of 2 meals observed. This failed practice had the potential to affect 1 resident who received pureed diets in Cottage #4, 1 resident who received pureed diets in Cottage #6, and 3 residents who received pureed diets in Cottage #7. The findings are: 1. On 04/22/2024 at 12:28 PM, the lead Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) in Cottage #7 used a 4-ounce spoon to place 4 servings of cut green beans into a blender and pureed. She poured it into a divided plate on the counter. The consistency of the pureed green beans was runny and was not formed. Water was separated from the beans. 2. On 04/22/2024 at 12:30 PM, the lead CNA placed 4 servings of bread sticks into a blender, added whole milk and pureed. She poured the pureed bread into a divided plate. The consistency of the pureed bread was lumpy, and not smooth. The consistency of the pureed chicken alfredo on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-04-30 · 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 and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff used proper hand hygiene while passing medication and providing perineal care for 2 (Resident #16 and #25) sampled residents. The findings are: 1. On 04/24/2024 at 07:24 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 prepared medications for Resident #16. At 07:32 AM, she put on gloves, administered eye drops, inhaler, and injected scheduled insulin into the abdomen of Resident #16. She then applied cream to Resident #16's arms and hands. At 7:36 AM, LPN #3 discarded the gloves and retrieved a clean pair and, without washing or sanitizing her hands, put on the clean pair of gloves and administered a second dose of eye drops in each eye of Resident #16. a. On 04/25/2024 at 07:59 PM, the Infection Preventionist (IP) was interviewed by telephone and was asked what should a nurse do before changing gloves during medication administration. She asked what the scenario was and was informed the nurse was changing administration routes. The IP then answered, Use hand sanitizer. She was asked why and stated, To…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-30 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were not self-administered without a physician's order, and the interdisciplinary team (IDT) assessed residents to determine self-administration of medications was safe for 1 (Resident #33) of 1 sampled resident. The findings are: On 04/22/2024 at 11:44 AM, a bottle of Nystatin-Triamcinolone Cream was found in Resident #33's bathroom. Resident #33 stated that the resident applies the cream to the resident because of where it is located. On 04/24/2024 at 09:19 AM, a bottle of Nystatin-Triamcinolone Cream was found in Resident #33's bathroom. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/16/2024 documented Resident #33 scored 14 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact) on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). Resident #33's Care Plan dated 04/01/2024, did not identify the resident as able or assessed to self-administer medications. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated April 2024 documented that Resident #33 had been diagnosed with candidiasis (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 · D2024-04-30 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident restrooms were cleaned to promote a clean and sanitary environment for 1 (Resident #43) of 1 sampled resident who used the bathroom in their room. The findings are: 1. Resident #43 had diagnoses of weakness and constipation as documented on an order summary. a. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/09/2024 documented the resident had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact) and required substantial/maximal assistance with toileting hygiene. b. A Care Plan dated 02/16/2024 documented Resident #43 required assistance with some functional abilities related to weakness and requires assistance of one staff with toileting hygiene. c. On 04/22/2024 at 12:55 PM, Resident #43's toilet had brown stains on the inside and outside of the toilet bowl. d. On 04/23/2024 at 03:38 PM, Resident #43's toilet had brown stains on the inside and outside of the toilet bowl. e. On 04/25/2024 at 06:00 PM, Resident #43's toilet had 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 · D2024-04-30 · 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 residents received proper and punctual incontinence care for 1 (Resident #25) sampled resident. The findings are: Resident #25 had diagnoses of Urinary tract infection and Candidiasis. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Referenced Date (ARD) of 02/13/2024 documented Resident #25 scored 15 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact) on a Brief Interview for Mental Status and was occasionally incontinent of bowel and bladder. A Care Plan with a review date of 02/23/2024, documented Resident #25 required assistance with functional abilities related to muscle weakness, lack of coordination, and fracture to left femur and shaft of right tibia. On 04/22/2024 at 09:55 AM, the Surveyor noted the odor of urine upon entering Resident #25's room that got stronger upon approach to the resident. Resident #25 was lying in bed with a blue disposable incontinence pad visible underneath the resident's body. On 04/22/2024 at 12:15 PM, the Surveyor observed Resident #25 lying in bed. The Surveyor noted that…
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 · D2024-04-30 · 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services for residents receiving enteral nutrition via Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube for 1 (Resident #23) of 1 sampled resident. The findings are: Resident #35 had diagnoses of sequelae of cerebral infarction, epilepsy, aphasia, and dysphagia. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/23/2024 documented Resident #35 scored 3 (3 indicates severely impaired cognitive skills) on a Staff Assessment for Mental Status (SAMS) and had a PEG tube while a Resident. A Physician ' s Order for Resident #35 documented, Enteral Feed 45 ml (milliliter)/hour for 23 of 24 hours a day, enteral feed every shift flush rate of water (H2O) 60ml/hour, elevate HOB (Head of Bed) 30 to 45 degrees. A Care Plan with a review date of 04/04/2024 documented that Resident #35 had a PEG tube and needs HOB elevated 30 to 45 degrees during tube feeding. On 04/22/2024 at 10:40 AM, the Surveyor observed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 at the bedside 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 · D2024-04-30 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a pharmacist's recommendation for the provider to provide an appropriate diagnosis before administering an antipsychotic medication was followed for 1 (Resident #20) sampled resident. The findings are: 1. Resident #20 had diagnoses of Dementia, Major depression, and Delirium due to unknown physiological condition. 2. Resident #20 had an order in place for Zyprexa, which is an antipsychotic medication that can treat several mental health conditions like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. 3. A Medication Regimen Review (MRR) dated 09/29/2023 documented, A. Consultant Pharmacist .Antipsychotic recommendation . Unnecessary Psychotropic Medication . ZyPREXA Oral Tablet 5 MG (milligram) . Diagnosis: F33.1 MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER, RECURRENT, MODERATE . Consultant Pharmacist Notes .Consider appropriate diagnosis . a. The Attending Physician/Prescribing Practitioner response was, .Continue current medication regimen with no changes . Clinical rationale and/or documentation for continued need (risk vs. benefit): hospice .…
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 · D2023-05-04 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
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 that residents who experienced a significant change in status had a comprehensive assessment completed within 14 days of the facility determining that there had been a significant change for 2 (Residents #26, and #86) of 24 (#2, #11, #14, #26, #28, #29, #42, #43, #51, #57, #61, #63, #67, #69, #72, #73, #75, #77, #82, #85, #86, #87, #138, and #191) sampled residents who relied on the facility for accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) documentation. The findings are: 1. Resident #26 had diagnoses of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following Cerebral Infarction affecting left Dominant Side, and Primary generalized Osteoarthritis. The Quarterly MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/21/23 documented a score of 9 (8-12 indicates moderate impairment) on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). a. The Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 11/21/22 documented the following under Section G, Subsection G0110. Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Assistance: i. Bed mobility required limited assistance 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 · D2023-05-04 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards to prevent the worsening of a skin condition for 1 (Resident #11) sampled resident who had a non-pressure related skin condition and failed to provide services to prevent the worsening of a contracture for 1 (Resident #42) sampled resident who required a hand roll. The findings are: 1. Resident #11 had a diagnosis of Chronic Venous Hypertension (Idiopathic) with Ulcer of Bilateral Lower Extremities. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/07/23 received a score of 14 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact) on a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS). Requires one-person physical assist with bathing, supervision with locomotion on and off unit, toileting, dressing, personal hygiene and is independent with bed mobility and transfers. a. The Care Plan with a revision date of 05/11/22 documented, .Resident #11 is at risk for Impaired Skin Integrity .Report any skin concerns to nurse .Unna boot to bil…
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 · D2023-05-04 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide service to maintain appropriate sleep hygiene for 2 (Residents #11 and #67) sampled residents who use Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP). The findings are: 1. Resident #11 had a diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/07/23 documented a score of 14 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact) on a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS), required one-person physical assist with bathing, supervision with locomotion on and off unit, toileting, dressing, personal hygiene and was independent with bed mobility and transfers. a. The Care Plan with a revision date of 05/11/22 documented, .Resident #11 is at risk for altered respiratory status, complications/SOB [Shortness of Breath] r/t [related to] COPD and Respiratory Failure .CPAP @ [at] HS as ordered . b. The Physician's Order with a start date of 02/16/23 documented, .Auto BPAP [Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure] to be worn at bedtime IPAP [Inspiratory…
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
$39,621 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $39,621 — penalty dated 2024-04-30
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to SOUTHERN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES — 35 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2 of 5 | 3.8 | -1.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 3.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.9 | +0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
The other 34 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.8★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4P2T1 OPS HOLDING LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 02/10/2019 |
| ALEXARK1 LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2022 |
| JEJ ASSETS LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2022 |
| JEJ MANAGEMENT, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2022 |
| PONTHIE, SHARLOT | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/01/2022 |
| PHILLIPS, LESLIE | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 02/10/2019 |
| PONTHIE, JOHN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $6.8M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 65% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in AR
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Arkansas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 045377. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-07, 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.