ASH FLAT HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Ash Flat Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice among nursing homes. It ranks #51 out of 218 facilities in Arkansas, placing it in the top half of the state, but it is #3 out of 3 in Sharp County, meaning there are two other local options that perform better. The facility is improving its performance, with a significant drop in issues from 11 in 2024 to none in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, earning a rating of 4 out of 5 stars with a turnover rate of 38%, which is lower than the state average of 50%, suggesting a stable workforce that knows the residents well. While there have been no fines, which is encouraging, recent inspections revealed several areas of concern. For instance, expired food items were not removed properly, and staff failed to consistently wear hair coverings in the kitchen, posing potential contamination risks. Additionally, garbage was not properly covered, raising concerns about hygiene and pest control. Overall, while the facility shows strengths in staffing and improvement trends, families should be aware of these ongoing issues.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Arkansas
- #51/218
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 38% turnover. Near Arkansas's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Arkansas facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 31 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Arkansas. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (38%)
10 points below Arkansas average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Arkansas avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record
Mar 2024
11 deficiencies
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 observations, interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was updated for 1 (Resident #53) of 65 residents who receive a care plan. The findings are:...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and policy review, the facility failed to provide meal service to an entire table before servi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0575
(Tag F0575)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and policy review the facility failed to post, in a form and manner accessible and understandable to all residents, contact information for pertinent State agencies and...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) was coded accurately to reflect the resident's dental status for 1 sampled resident (R#36). T...
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 observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident #53) resident of 14 sample mixed residents received a shave. The findings are:
Resident # 53 diagnoses sho...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure services were provided to minimize the potential for further decline in range of motion (ROM) for 1 (Resident #51) sampled residents w...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a safe and hazard-free environment was provided. This failed practice had the potential to affect 3 (Residents #10, #...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was followed for 1 (Resident #53) of 6 sample mixed residents who have an oxygen order. The find...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Dental Services
(Tag F0791)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure regular dental services were provided to 1 (Resident #36) of 1 sampled resident with painful teeth. The findings are:
O...
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 that pureed food items were blended to a smooth, lump free consistency to minimize the risk of choking or other complications for thos...
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 food items were dated; expired food items were promptly removed /discarded on or before the expiration or use by dates; failed to foll...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
1 deficiency
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was observed consuming medications that were mixed in food and failed to ensure Resident #2 did not consume Resident #1...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' fingernails were cleaned and trimmed to promote good personal hygiene and grooming for 1 (Residents #39) of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0687
(Tag F0687)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure necessary foot/toenail treatment and care was provided to keep toenails trimmed and shaped to decrease the potential fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and record review the facility failed to ensure fingernail clippers were not in reach, to prevent a potential accident/hazard for 1 (Resident #43) of 16 (Resident #3, R #5, R #14,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0885
(Tag F0885)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that the Residents, Resident Representatives and Families were notified by 5 PM the next calendar day following the occurrences of a ...
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, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure hair coverings were worn consistently by staff entering the meal prep area to prevent the potential contamination of foo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure garbage and refuse waste was properly covered with a lid to prevent the potential effect of insect and/or rodent infes...
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.
- • 38% turnover. Below Arkansas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Ash Flat Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ASH FLAT HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER 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 Ash Flat Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Staffed?
CMS rates ASH FLAT HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 38%, compared to the Arkansas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Ash Flat Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at ASH FLAT HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2022 to 2024. These included: 18 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Ash Flat Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center?
ASH FLAT HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER 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 SOUTHERN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 105 certified beds and approximately 52 residents (about 50% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in ASH FLAT, Arkansas.
How Does Ash Flat Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, ASH FLAT HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (38%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Ash Flat Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center?
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 Ash Flat Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ASH FLAT HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER 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 Ash Flat Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?
ASH FLAT HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 38%, which is about average for Arkansas nursing homes (state average: 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 Ash Flat Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?
ASH FLAT HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER 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 Ash Flat Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?
ASH FLAT HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER 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.