Sherwood Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Inc
245 Indian Bay Drive, Sherwood, AR 72120 · For profit - Corporation · 98 certified beds · (501) 834-9960 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)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- inspectors recorded 2 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- the CMS record shows $24,431 in federal fines (most recent 2025-12-11)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (60%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 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 | 11.0% | 9.5% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.2% | 4.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.0% | 0.6% | 0.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 1.2% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 1.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.5% | 3.9% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 13.7% | 10.1% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.2% | 21.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.2% | 96.1% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.5% | 4.2% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.6% | 13.5% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.9% | 10.9% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 1.3% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 73.8% | 77.7% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.3% | 24.1% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.3% | 12.5% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.88 | 2.01 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.86 | 2.13 | 1.80 | typical |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
48.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 208 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 41.9% 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 86 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 0.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 30% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 6% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 48.7%CMS range 41.6–55.6 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.0%CMS range 8.9–16.0 | 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 | 41.9% | 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 | 43.0% | 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 | 53.5% | 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 | 90.2% | 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 | 74.8% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 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 | 6.1% | 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 | 11.0%CMS range 7.0–14.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.14 | 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 98 beds and averages 88.6 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 9 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 4.74 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.21 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.42 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 4.14 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.98 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.14 to 0.38 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 60% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-12-11 · 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 record review, observations, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure two staff assisted in transferring a resident using a mechanical lift as required by the resident's closet care plan and manufacturer's recommendations, to prevent a fall for one (Resident #98) of one resident reviewed. This failed practice resulted in Resident #98 sustaining a laceration to the right eyebrow and an injury to the right eye, causing bleeding from the eye. It was determined the facility's non-compliance with one or more requirements of participation had caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. The Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was related to State Operation Manual, Appendix PP, 483.35 at a scope and severity of J. The IJ began on [DATE], after a review of a record provided by the Administrator regarding Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 performing a one-person transfer, using a mechanical lift, of Resident #98 who was care planned for 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2023-10-17 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure two staff members were present when transferring a resident who required two-person assistance to prevent accident and injury for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 sampled residents. The findings are: These findings were determined to be an Immediate Jeopardy. The Surveyor provided the State Operations Manual Appendix Q Immediate Jeopardy template to the Administrator and informed of the Immediate Jeopardy on 10/16/23 at 2:28 PM. The findings are: Review of Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/07/23 showed the resident is an extensive assistance of two person physical assist for transfer. Review of Resident #1's closet care plan showed transfers with assist of 2, mechanical lift with 2 staff. Review of Resident #1's care plan dated 02/17/2023 showed Resident will adapt to being transferred times 2 staff via mechanical lift. Resident #1 had a witnessed fall on 10/07/2023 CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant)…
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 before2025-12-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene was performed during perineal care for one (Resident #106) of one resident reviewed. The findings include: Review of Medical Diagnosis revealed Resident #106 to have diagnoses of congestive heart failure, COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), and atrial fibrillation [fluttering heart palpitations]. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date of 10/31/2025 revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 06, which indicates severe cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicated Resident #106 was incontinent of bowel, and occasionally incontinent of bladder. During an observation on 12/08/2025 at 1:37 PM, CNA (certified nursing assistant) #16 and CNA #9 assisted Resident #106 into bed and removed Resident #106's pajama bottoms while wearing gloves. CNA #9 folded down the front of Resident 106's brief and wiped the resident's perineal area. Resident #106 assisted in rolling to the right-side and CNA #16 wiped down the buttocks area twice in one…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-09-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure dented food cans were promptly removed/ discarded; expired food items and spices were promptly removed/discarded on or before the expiration or use by date; food stored in the freezer and dry storage area were dated to ensure first in and first; dietary staff wore hairnets to prevent the potential for cross contamination for residents who received meals from 1 of 1 kitchens; serving dishes were stored properly to prevent the potential for cross contamination;1 of 2 ice machines was maintained in clean and sanitary condition and dietary staff handled glassware items properly to prevent the potential for cross contamination for residents who received meals from 1 of 1 kitchen. The failed practices had the potential to affect residents who received meals from 1 of 1 kitchen (total census: 94). The findings are: 1. On 9/9/2024 at 9:43AM, the plate warmer full of plates to be used in portioning food items to be served to the residents for lunch were not covered, exposing them to debris or pests. 2.…
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 before2024-09-12 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms were clean, safe, and homelike for 1 (Resident #357) of 1 resident reviewed for homelike environment. Findings include: A review of the facility's undated policy titled ,Housekeeping indicated, Housekeeping services are planned, operated, and maintained to provide a safe and sanitary environment. 1. Housekeeping staff will be skilled in the six basic functions of sweeping, mopping, dusting, cleaning, waxing, and polishing. 2. Housekeeping staff will strive to keep the facility free from offensive odors, accumulation of dirt, rubbish, dust, and safety hazards . 4. Walls and floors shall be cleaned during periods when the least amount of food is exposed, such as between meals. 5. Floors will be cleaned regularly, and any floor polish will have a non-slip finish . 7. Bedpans, commodes, and urinals will be covered after use, emptied promptly, and thoroughly cleaned after use. This may be done by nursing personnel. A review of an admission…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-09-12 · tag F0636 — patternAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record review, facility document review, the facility failed to ensure discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) was completed and transmitted for 2 (Resident #44 and Resident #93) of 2 residents reviewed for MDS accuracy and timing of assessments. Findings include: 1. On 09/12/2024 at 12:30 PM, the Administrator stated the facility did not have a policy for the MDS and stated that the facility uses the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) guidelines. 2. A review of the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident #44 on 03/18/2024 with diagnoses that included pulmonary embolism and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. Resident #44 was discharged from the facility on 04/25/2024. a. The 5-day MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/22/2024 revealed Resident #44 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. 3. A review of the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident #93 on 04/05/2024 with diagnoses that included sepsis, acute kidney failure…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-09-12 · tag F0655 — patternCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, record review, the facility failed to ensure baseline care plans were completed within 48 hours of admission for 4 (Resident #301, Resident #351, Resident #352, and Resident #357) of 4 residents reviewed for baseline care plans. Findings include: 1. On 09/12/2024 at 10:00 AM, the Administrator stated the facility did not have a policy for baseline care plans due to it being in the regulations. 2. A review of the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident #301 on 04/25/2024 with diagnoses of congestive heart failure, dyspnea(shortness of breath) and fall. a. The 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/16/2024, revealed Resident #301 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. b. A review of the electronic medical record revealed Resident #301 had no baseline care plan. 3. A review of the admission Record indicated that the facility admitted Resident #351 on 08/16/2024 with diagnoses that included atrioventricular block,…
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 · D2024-09-12 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a dialysis care plan was initiated for 1 (Resident #351) of 1 resident reviewed for dialysis care planning. Findings include: 1. On 09/12/2024 at 10:00 AM, the Administrator stated the facility did not have a policy for care planning due to it being in the regulations. 2. A review of the admission Record, indicated the facility admitted Resident #351 with diagnoses that included heart disease, retention of urine, and end stage renal disease. a. The 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 08/20/2024, revealed Resident #351 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #351 was marked on the MDS as receiving hemodialysis. b. A review of Resident #351's Care Plan, initiated on 08/19/2024, revealed the resident had no dialysis care plan with interventions. 3. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 09/11/24 at 11:15 AM, verification was received that there was no order…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-12 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene and proper wearing and removal of personal protective equipment for 1 (Resident #355) of 1 resident reviewed for enhanced barrier precautions. Findings include: 1. A review of a facility policy titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, dated 11/16/2016, indicated, This facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections .All personnel shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, residents, and visitors. 4. Use an alcohol-based hand rub if no visible soiling, 5. Hand hygiene is the final step after removing and disposing of personal protective equipment. A review of the facility's undated policy titled, Isolation Precautions, Categories of, dated 11/22/2016 indicated Gloves and Hand washing:1. Wear gloves (clean, nonsterile) when entering the room. 2. During the course of caring for 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 · Ecited before2023-09-22 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure that resident equipment and living space was maintained in a clean, serviceable manner to maintain resident health and dignity for all 91 residents who currently reside in the facility. The findings included: The following observations were made on 09/18/2023. a. At 11:06 AM, the wheelchair of Resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] B had dirt and debris covering the spokes and the metal was covered in food crumbs and dust. b. At 11:21 AM, room [ROOM NUMBER] had multiple areas of dust, lint, and the trash can was overflowing. c. At 11:47 AM in room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom, a raised toilet chair had dark brown rust on the metal bar which supports the toilet seat. The following observations were made on 09/18/2023 at 11:50 AM in room [ROOM NUMBER]. a. The pole supporting the Resident's tube feeding had what appeared to be dried formula on the metal base. b. The floor around the base of the pole was covered with dried areas of liquid, dirt, dust, and debris.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-09-22 · 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 observations and interviews the facility failed to ensure that staff sanitized hands between assisting residents with eating during lunch in the main dining room. The facility failed to ensure foods stored in the kitchen freezer were properly sealed to prevent freezer burn and food cans were not damaged to prevent the growth of bacteria. These failed practices had the potential to affect 89 residents who receive meals from the kitchen. The findings included: During observation on 09/18/2023 at 10:55 AM in the kitchen inside the walk-in refrigerator, was 1 box containing an unsealed bag of 7 chicken patties. The Assistant Dietary Manger (ADM) confirmed the chicken patties should be sealed. During observation on 09/18/2023 at 11:03 AM, there were 2 dented cans in the kitchen. During observation on 09/18/2023 at 12:49 PM Nurse Aid (NA) #1 was assisting one female resident with her food, then turned to assist another female resident with her food. There was no handwashing or hand sanitizing observed between assisting the Residents. During observation on 09/18/2023 at 12:50 PM,…
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 before2023-09-22 · 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 observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored safely. The failed practice had the potential to affect 1 Resident (Resident #36) sampled resident. The findings included: Review of Resident #36's medical diagnosis form showed diagnoses of cerebral infarction, dementia, anxiety, and major depression. During observation on 09/18/2023 03:11 PM, Resident #36's bathroom had multiple medicine cups with a clear white cream inside, and one medicine cup with a tan colored powder. Several unlabeled toothbrushes that belonged to Resident #36 and the roommate. A bottle labeled peri wash, and a bottle labeled odor eliminator. During observation on 09/19/2023 12:44 PM, Resident #36's bathroom counter had 3 medicine cups of clear white thick cream and 1 medicine cup with a tan colored powder. A bottle of Peri wash, and a bottle of odor. Eliminator. During observation on 09/20/2023 11:32 AM, Resident #36's bathroom counter had 1medicine cup with a thick white cream inside and 1 medicine cup with a tan powder inside. On Resident ' s bedside…
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
$24,431 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $16,985 — penalty dated 2025-12-11
- $7,446 — penalty dated 2023-09-22
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 CENTRAL ARKANSAS NURSING CENTERS — 38 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 | 3 of 5 | 3.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 4.2 | -2.2 vs chain |
The other 37 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.6★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAMS, JERRY | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/12/2014 |
| MORTON, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 02/15/2002 |
| TENNYSON, JOSHUA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/10/2024 |
| NURSING CONSULTANTS INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| SHERWOOD NURSING CENTER INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/12/2024 |
| NICKOLS, MICHAEL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/10/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.5M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 16% 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 045376. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-11, 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.