No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Van Buren Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center

1404 North 28th Street, Van Buren, AR 72956 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 140 certified beds · (479) 474-8021 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (479) 474-8021 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Behavioral-health or dementia-care citation — no harm found (F0744)
Insights

On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record

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.

5/5
CMS overall
5 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 5 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 3 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
2521 Alma Hwy · (479) 709-7020 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
120 Cloverleaf Plz · (479) 471-0800 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
120 Cloverleaf Plz · (479) 474-0772 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Peer Park0.9 mi
1766 City Park Rd · (479) 471-5006 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 3 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 3 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 held steady at 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased6.2%9.5%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight2.8%4.3%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.2%0.6%0.9%better
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection1.2%1.2%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms7.9%1.4%6.5%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury4.3%3.9%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened5.3%10.1%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication44.5%21.7%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%96.1%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers3.8%4.2%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control3.6%13.5%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table20.3%10.9%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication2.0%1.3%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine96.2%77.7%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission29.7%24.1%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit15.4%12.5%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days2.302.011.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.742.131.80worse

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

52.8% 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 54 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

52.8%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.7%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
61.1%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.33U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.17hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.15hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.02hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 61.1% 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 54 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 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 56% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF52.8%CMS range 36.2–66.351.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.7%CMS range 7.0–15.010.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 discharge61.1%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 discharge70.4%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge53.7%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 dischargenot 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 stay2.1%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.1%CMS range 3.9–11.57.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.101.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.18
RN hours/ resident / day
1.13
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.78
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.09
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.07
RN hoursweekends
47.9%
Total nursing turnover
0.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 140 beds and averages 122.3 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 18 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 4.09 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.18 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.78 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.40 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.37 on weekdays — 22% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.23 to 0.07 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

1
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-05-21)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2024-09-19)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

  • Potential for harm · D2026-05-21 · tag F0744 — failed to care for residents with dementia — isolated
    Provide the appropriate treatment and services to a resident who displays or is diagnosed with dementia.
    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, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered comprehensive care plan that included dementia care needs for one (Resident #37) of one resident reviewed. The findings include: Review of Resident #37's admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #37 on 08/05/2023 with diagnoses that included dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere, unspecified severity, with other behavioral disturbance with an onset date of 09/02/2025. Review of Resident #37's Physician Orders revealed Resident #37 was admitted to [the facility] long-term care (LTC) with an order date of 11/03/2025. Review of Resident #37's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date of 03/08/2026, revealed Resident #37 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 10, which indicated Resident #37 had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS also revealed active diagnoses in the last seven days that included non-Alzheimer's dementia. Review of Resident…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-09-19 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the care plan was followed related to fall interventions for 1 (Resident #32) of 1 sampled resident with a history of falls. The findings are: On 09/20/2024 at 2:45 PM, the Surveyor observed one fall mat in place on the right side of Resident #32's bedside. The Surveyor observed adhesive strips on the left side of Resident #32's bedside. On 09/22/2024 at 09:00 AM, review of the Care Plan, with an initiated date of 06/19/24, noted Resident #32 was a moderate risk for falls, with falls recorded on 7/21/2024, 7/27/2024, and 9/11/2024 without injury. Interventions include a fall mat placed on both sides of the bed. On 09/22/2024 at 09:30 AM, review of the Medical Diagnosis sheet reported Resident #32 had diagnoses of unspecified lack of coordination, severe protein calorie malnutrition, reduce mobility, muscle wasting, and abnormalities of gait and mobility. On 09/22/2024 at 11:51 AM, the Surveyor observed one fall mat in place on the right side of Resident #32's bedside. No fall mat was observed on the…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-09-19 · tag F0676 — failed to keep up residents' daily-living abilities — isolated
    Ensure residents do not lose the ability to perform activities of daily living unless there is a medical reason.
    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 alternative communication methods for 1 (Resident #15) of 1 sampled resident who required alternative formats for communication. The findings are: On 09/16/2024 at 2:00 PM, during initial rounds and interviews with the residents, Resident #15 indicated they wanted to speak with the Surveyor. Upon entering the Resident #15's room, the Surveyor became aware that Resident #15 struggled to communicate verbally. No communication board or note tablet was visible in the resident's room. Resident #15 became agitated as the Surveyor struggled to understand what Resident #15 was trying to communicate. When asked if there was a way Resident #15 could communicate with the Surveyor easily, Resident #15 looked around room then indicated no. On 09/16/2024 at 10:00 AM, review of Resident #15's Medical Diagnosis sheet reported a history of traumatic brain injury, and dementia. On 09/16/2024 at 10:30 AM, review of Resident #15's Care Plan, with an initiated date of 12/15/21, noted Resident #15 had a communication…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-09-19 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident #4) of 7 residents reviewed for accidents and hazards received adequate supervision to prevent the potential for accidents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #4 was supervised to prevent the access and potential for ingestion of hand sanitizer, on the overbed table next to a cup of water in Resident #4's room. Findings included: A review of the admission Record, indicated the facility admitted Resident #4 with diagnoses that included senile degeneration of the brain, benign neoplasm of prostate, unspecified dementia, and metabolic encephalopathy. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 07/14/2024 revealed Resident #4 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 1 which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Resident #4's functional abilities indicated resident required set up and clean up assistance with eating and oral hygiene. Resident #4 utilized a manual wheelchair for…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2023-07-14 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure food items stored in the refrigerator/freezer were covered, sealed and dated; expired food items were promptly removed/discarded by the expiration or use by dates to prevent potential food borne illness for residents who received meal trays from 1 of 1 kitchen; and dietary staff washed their hands before handling clean equipment or food items to prevent potential food borne illness for residents who received meals from 1 of 1 kitchen. The failed practices had the potential to affect 97 residents who received meals from the kitchen (total census: 98), as documented on a list provided by the Dietary Supervisor on 07/11/23 at 2:22 AM. The findings are: 1. On 07/10/23 10:33 AM, the following observations were made in the walk-in refrigerator: a. A container of leftover apple cobbler dated 6/30/2023. b. An opened box of sausage not covered or sealed. 2. On 07/10/23 at 10:34 AM, the following observation was made in the in the walk-in freezer: a. An opened box of egg omelets not covered. 3. On 07/10/23 at 11:22 AM, there…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-07-14 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — pattern
    Keep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure privacy and confidentiality of personal and medical information was maintained during medication administration by not locking the computer screens when not in use for 2 (Residents #29 and #59) of 2 sampled residents. The findings are: 1. On 07/12/23 at 8:33 AM, on the East Hall the medication cart was left unattended with the laptop screen opened and unlocked with Resident #29's name, information, and photo visible. 2. On 07/12/23 at 8:33 AM, the Surveyor asked Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 to look at the computer on the medication cart and tell this Surveyor what was wrong. LPN #3 stated, I left it open. The Surveyor asked if she should lock the laptop computer when she left her medication cart unattended. LPN #3 stated, Yes. The Surveyor asked what could happen if she didn't lock her laptop screen and left it unattended for others to see. LPN #3 stated, A violation of HIPPA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act]. 3. On 07/13/23 at 3:49 PM, on the North Hall the medication cart was unattended 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-07-14 · tag F0641 — pattern
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    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 interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately record the resident assessment for 4 (Resident #6, #48, #86, #89) of 4 sampled residents. The findings are: 1. Resident #6 had a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder. a. Resident #6's electronic medical records contained a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Level II dated 12/23/20. b. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) dated 03/24/23 documented the resident was not currently considered by the state level II PASRR process to have a serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition. 2. Resident #48 had a diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder. a. A letter from [State Designated Professional Associates] dated 01/30/20 regarding Resident #48's documented Resident #48 does not require specialized services and recommended the following rehabilitative services: Mental health Evaluation/Diagnosis; Pharmacological Management by Physician; Periodic Review of Master treatment…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-07-14 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
    Develop 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered plan of care for 2 (Residents #27 and #86) of 13 (Residents #6, #27, #29, #48, #55, #59, #63, #71, #84, #86, #89, #91 and #96) sampled residents whose Care Plans were reviewed. The findings are: 1. Resident #27 was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder. a. The Care Plan with an initiated date of 10/06/21 did not address interventions and care related to Bipolar Disorder. b. A Physicians Orders dated 05/08/23 indicated the resident was to receive Depakote Sprinkles (Divalproex Sodium) 125 milligrams one time a day related to Bipolar Disorder, Current Episode Depressed, Mild. c. Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/15/23 documented the resident had a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder. d. On 7/12/23 at 3:17 PM, the Surveyor asked the MDS if all serious mental health diagnoses should be represented on a resident's Care Plan. The MDS Coordinator…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-07-14 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — pattern
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care was provided to promote cleanliness and good personal hygiene for 1 (Resident # 71) of 10 (Residents #15, #20, #30, #63, #65, #68, #71, #86, #89 and #91) sampled residents who required staff assistance with shaving on the South Hall (Secure Unit). This failed practice had the potential to affect 24 residents who required assistance on the South Secured Unit with ADL care as documented on a list provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 07/14/23 at 9:06 AM. The findings are: 1. Resident #71 had diagnoses of Unspecified Dementia, unspecified Severity, without Behavioral Disturbance, Psychotic Disturbance, Mood Disturbance and Anxiety and Unspecified Lack of Coordination. a. On 07/10/23 at 11:37 AM, Resident #71 was sitting in the Dayroom. She had ½ inch long facial hair on her chin. b. On 07/11/23 at 8:37 AM, Resident #71 was in the Dayroom for breakfast. She had facial hair on her chin approximately 1/2 inch long. c. On 07/12/23 at 8:51 AM, Resident #71 was lying…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-07-14 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — pattern
    Provide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an indwelling catheter bag was covered to maintain privacy for 1 (Resident #63) of 6 (Residents #12, #22, #29, #51, #63 and #78) sampled residents who had an indwelling catheter. The findings are: 1. Resident #63 had diagnoses of Alzheimer's Disease with Early Onset, Neuromuscular Dysfunction of Bladder, Unspecified and Chronic Kidney Disease, Unspecified. a. A Physicians Order dated 01/01/23 indicated the resident had a 16 Fr (french) foley catheter due to Neurogenic Bladder. b. A Care Plan with an initiated date of 01/12/23 indicated to position the catheter bag and tubing below the level of the bladder and away from entrance room door. The Care Plan did not address a privacy bag. c. On 07/10/23 at 3:13 PM, Resident #63 was sitting in his wheelchair in the Dayroom. His catheter bag was hung under the wheelchair approximately half full of a clear yellow liquid. No cover was on the bag. d. On 07/11/23 at 8:50 AM, Resident #63 was sitting in his wheelchair eating breakfast. The catheter bag was hanging…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-07-14 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — pattern
    Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure meals were prepared and served according to the planned written menu to meet the nutritional needs of the residents for 1 of 1 meal observed. This failed practice had the potential to affect 71 residents who received regular diets, 18 residents who received mechanical soft diets, and 6 residents who received pureed diets from the kitchen according to a list provided by the Dietary Supervisor on 07/11/23. The findings are: 1. The facility lunch menu provided by the Dietary Supervisor on 07/10/23 at 1:37 PM documented that each resident who received a regular diet was to receive 3 ounces of honey glazed turkey. All residents were to receive baked sweet potatoes and residents on a pureed diet were to receive one 2 inch by 3 inch square of pureed marble cake with frosting. 2. The following observations were made during preparation of the noon meal: a. On 07/10/23 at 11:44 AM, Dietary Employee (DE) #1 was wearing gloves on her hands while she transferred slices of marble cake into individual plates with 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-07-14 · tag F0920 — pattern
    Provide at least one room set aside to use as a resident dining room and for activities, that is a good size, with good lighting, air flow and furniture.
    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 a comfortable, homelike, social dining experience was provided for residents who resided on the facility's Secure Unit. This failed practice had the potential to affect 31 residents as documented on the Census for the Secure Unit South Hall provided by the Registered Nurse (RN) Consultant on 07/10/23 at 1:39 PM. The findings are: 1. On 07/10/23 at 1:20 PM, the Dining Room area of the Secure Unit contained two tables on one side with two chairs near a piano and a recliner, and 3 tables pushed together and a table in the corner on the other side with 4 chairs. 2. On 07/10/23 from 12:45 PM to 1:35 PM, Resident #55 was going back and forth from her room to the Secure Unit Dining Room. At 1:59 PM, the Surveyor asked Resident #55 if she preferred to eat in her room. Resident #55 stated, Yes, it's too crowded out there. There is not enough room. The Surveyor asked would you eat in the Dining Room if there was more room. Resident #55 stated, Yes, probably. 3. On 07/12/23 at 12:40 PM, there were no empty chairs…

    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.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-07-14 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — pattern
    Make sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure food preparation, service areas, and resident areas were free from visible signs of rodents and pests. This failed practice had the potential to affect 98 residents who received a meal tray from the kitchen as documented on a list provided by the Dietary Supervisor on 07/11/23 at 2:22 PM. The findings are: 1. On 07/10/23 at 12:16 PM, the following observations were made around the food preparation area: a. There was a fly crawling on the back of a saucepan hanging on the bar above the food preparation counter. b. A fly was on a pole. c. A fly was on a whisk. d. A fly was a sifter, one was crawling on a knife, and one was flying around the food area. The flies were shown to the Dietary Supervisor. e. A fly was on the wall by the hand washing sink. f. 4 flies were on a food cart close to the hand washing sink. g. A fly was on the wall by the dish window, and one was on the floor close to the food cart. The flies were shown to the…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-07-14 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolated
    Ensure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure meals were served at temperatures that were acceptable to the residents to improve palatability and encourage good nutritional intake during 2 of 2 meals observed. The failed practice had the potential to affect 8 residents who received meal trays in their room on the 100 Hall; 31 residents who received meal trays in their room on the South Hall (Secure Unit); 16 residents who received meal trays in their room on the [NAME] Hall; 17 residents who received meal trays in their room on the North Hall and 26 residents who received meal trays in their room on the East Hall, as documented on a list provided by the Dietary Supervisor on 07/11/23 at 6:30 PM. The findings are: 1. On 07/11/23 at 5:07 PM, an unheated cart containing 6 meal trays for the assist residents for supper was delivered to the East Hall by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1. At 5:34 PM, Immediately after the last resident received their tray in their room, the temperatures of the food items on a test tray from the cart were checked and…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to STEIN LTC — 4 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 5 of 54.5+0.5 vs chain
Health inspection 5 of 54.3+0.7 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 53.3-0.3 vs chain
Quality measures 3 of 53.8-0.8 vs chain
The other 3 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.5★, 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 / managerTypeRoleShareSince
ROBERT V RYE LIV TR DTD 10042022Organization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF40%since 01/16/2023
RYE, ROBERTIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF20%since 10/13/2007
STEIN, JAMESIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF20%since 10/13/2007
STEIN, PAULIndividual5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF20%since 10/13/2007
RODRIGUEZ, NATHANIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/25/2022
SILVER, DANNYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/04/2008

CMS files one row per role, so the 15 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

1 organizational owner 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.

$10.4M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+12.9%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.3M
Related-party expense15% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 76%Medicare 6%Other / private 18%

About 76% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $1.3M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$249per resident / day
operating cost
$7,555per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$285per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in AR

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Arkansas
$7,452/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$8,060/mo
Nursing home (private)
$4,637/mo
Assisted living

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 045268. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-21, 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.

What to do next