NIGHTINGALE AT ARKADELPHIA
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Nightingale at Arkadelphia has a Trust Grade of B, which indicates it is a good facility, solid but not exceptional. It ranks #70 out of 218 nursing homes in Arkansas, placing it in the top half of facilities statewide, and #1 out of 2 in Clark County, meaning it is the best local option available. The facility is improving, having reduced its issues from 8 in 2023 to just 1 in 2024. Staffing is rated 4 out of 5 stars, with turnover at 52%, which is around the state average, indicating a fairly stable workforce. Although there have been no fines, recent inspections revealed concerns such as the failure to maintain clean kitchen equipment, which could risk foodborne illness, and the presence of expired food items, potentially affecting many residents. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and no fines, families should be aware of the food safety issues noted in recent inspections.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Arkansas
- #70/218
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 52% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Arkansas facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 28 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Arkansas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Arkansas avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record
Jun 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a refund was received by the resident or responsible party within 30 days from the date of discharge for 6 residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to repair water damage in the wall of 1 (Resident room [ROOM NUMBER]) of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to implement the plan of care for 1 (Resident #53) of 1 sampled resident who had a fall in the last 60 days. The findings are:
1....
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure nailcare was regularly provided for 2 (Residents #20 and #22) of 4 (Residents #20, #22, #53 and #57) sampled residents ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0919
(Tag F0919)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure call devices were available and within reach for 1 (Resident #27) of 14 (Residents #3, #7, #12, #14, #15, #20, #22, #2...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 ice machine and 1 scoop holder were maintained in clean and sanitary condition to prevent contamination of airborne particles; foods...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect 1 (Resident #1) of 3 (Residents #1, #2, and #3) sampled residents from verbal abuse. The findings are:
1. Resident #1 had diagnoses...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was monitored by a nurse when receiving a breathing treatment for 1 (Resident #3) of 2 (Residents #2 and #3)...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure cooked food was discarded within 3 days; food was sealed and dated; food was thawed at appropriate temperatures and the floors were cl...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2022
12 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure that an Advance Directive Acknowledgement and/or Advance Directive was in place for 1 of 1 sample (Residents #67) who record was rev...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure there were no urine odors and the floor was cl...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Quarterly MDS Assessment was accurate for 1 of 1 sample Resident #10 who was coded for the use of a restraint. The f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the use of anticoagulants was documented on the care plan for 1 (Resident #44) of 3 (Resident #38, 34, 44) sampled residents who had...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Care Plan was revised to included Oral/Dental problems and that interventions for 1 of 1 (Resident #64) sample res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a gradual dose reduction for Trazadone was appropriately addressed by the Physician in a timely manner and included a documented rat...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the resident representative in writing of the reason for discharge in language they understand and send a copy of the notice to the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the bed hold policy was provided to the resident or resident's representative at the time of transfer for 2 (Resident #22, 68) of 3 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0790
(Tag F0790)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a dental assessment was done to ensure a resident with a dental issue was seen promptly by a dentist for (Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, facility failed to ensure meals were prepared and served according to the panned written menu to ensure that nutritionally balance meals were provide...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure pureed food items were blended to a smooth, lump free consistency to minimize the risk of choking or other complications for residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 15. On 05/16/22 at 12:14 PM., six ceiling fans over the tables in the Main Dining Room had an accumulation of dust on the blades...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Arkansas facilities.
- • 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Nightingale At Arkadelphia's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns NIGHTINGALE AT ARKADELPHIA an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Arkansas, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Nightingale At Arkadelphia Staffed?
CMS rates NIGHTINGALE AT ARKADELPHIA's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 52%, compared to the Arkansas average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Nightingale At Arkadelphia?
State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at NIGHTINGALE AT ARKADELPHIA during 2022 to 2024. These included: 21 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Nightingale At Arkadelphia?
NIGHTINGALE AT ARKADELPHIA is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by NIGHTINGALE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 100 certified beds and approximately 72 residents (about 72% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in ARKADELPHIA, Arkansas.
How Does Nightingale At Arkadelphia Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, NIGHTINGALE AT ARKADELPHIA's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (52%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Nightingale At Arkadelphia?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"
Is Nightingale At Arkadelphia Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, NIGHTINGALE AT ARKADELPHIA has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Arkansas. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Nightingale At Arkadelphia Stick Around?
NIGHTINGALE AT ARKADELPHIA has a staff turnover rate of 52%, which is 6 percentage points above the Arkansas average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Nightingale At Arkadelphia Ever Fined?
NIGHTINGALE AT ARKADELPHIA has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Nightingale At Arkadelphia on Any Federal Watch List?
NIGHTINGALE AT ARKADELPHIA is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.