EVERGREEN LIVING CENTER AT STAGECOACH
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Evergreen Living Center at Stagecoach has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is decent and slightly above average compared to other facilities. It ranks #63 out of 218 nursing homes in Arkansas, placing it in the top half, and #3 out of 6 in Saline County, meaning only two local options are better. The facility is improving, having reduced its issues from 10 in 2024 to 3 in 2025. However, staffing is a weak point with a 2 out of 5 rating and a concerning 69% turnover rate, which is higher than the state average of 50%. On a positive note, the facility has not incurred any fines, which is a good sign, and they have average RN coverage, meaning they have sufficient registered nurse oversight. Specific incidents noted by inspectors include a resident with significant cognitive impairment who was not properly monitored during meals, as well as unsafe conditions where chemicals were left accessible in resident bathrooms. Additionally, concerns about food quality were raised, with residents reporting many meals served cold and unappealing. Overall, while there are notable strengths, families should consider both the staffing challenges and the identified safety issues.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Arkansas
- #63/218
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 69% 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 22 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Arkansas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 24 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
23pts above Arkansas avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
21 points above Arkansas average of 48%
The Ugly 24 deficiencies on record
Jan 2025
3 deficiencies
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Comprehensive Care Plan contained the necessary information to fully provide and coordinate care and services for ...
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure staff followed a care planned intervention requiring two staff members to perform a mechanical lift t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to post and make readily accessible to residents and visitors daily nurse staffing in a clear and readable format to include the...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to coordinate with the State Agency for a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) to ensure the resident received appropriate men...
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive resident centered care plan for 1 (Resident #22) of 1 sampled resident addressed generalized anxiety, and major de...
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the plan of care was reviewed and revised to address tube feedings for 1 (Resident 43) of 1 sampled resident who had a physician's o...
Read full inspector narrative →
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure fingernails were trimmed, cleaned, and free of jagged edges to promote good personal hygiene and grooming for 1 (Resid...
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
2. On 01/09/24 at 10:24 AM, the Surveyor observed a cabinet on the 100 Hall with an unlocked lock hanging on the handle. The Survey asked CNA #3 if she could open the unlocked cabinet. A bottle of Hyd...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a residents oxygen tubing was dated for 1 (Resident #10) of 4 sampled residents who required oxygen to reduce the risk ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
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 ensure only licensed staff had access to keys to the medication room ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure meals were served in a method that maintained the appearance of food items that were acceptable to the residents to imp...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On 01/09/24 at 07:50 AM, the Surveyor observed CNA #2 feeding both Resident #45 and Resident #66 with her right hand without ...
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
7. Resident #12 had diagnoses of hemiplegia and hemiparesis, cerebral infarction, and dysphagia. The Quarterly Minimum Data set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/17/2023 documented a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
2 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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
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 residents' adult briefs were changed when wet ...
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
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 Intravenous (IV) tubing was dated and ports wer...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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 multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure wound care was provided for 1 (Resident #3) of 3 (Residents #1, #2 and #3) sampled residents who had a wound to preven...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2022
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a gastrotomy tube was documented on the Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 1 (Resident #73) of 3 (Resident #19 #...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure feeding tube placement was verified before administering medication in accordance with acceptable standards of practic...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
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 nut...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0604
(Tag F0604)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical restraints as evidenced by the wheels of the Dyn-Ergo chair being double locked whil...
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure incontinent care was routinely provided, and clothing was routinely changed to maintain good hygiene and prevent poten...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
2. Resident #46 had diagnoses of Unspecified Dementia with Agitation and Unsteadiness on Feet. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/26/22 documented the re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure medications and biologicals were stored at the correct temperature in the medication refrigerator in the medication room...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the environment was maintained in a safe condition for residents on the Secured Unit. This affected all 27 residents on the unit accor...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "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.
- • 24 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • 69% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Evergreen Living Center At Stagecoach's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns EVERGREEN LIVING CENTER AT STAGECOACH 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 Evergreen Living Center At Stagecoach Staffed?
CMS rates EVERGREEN LIVING CENTER AT STAGECOACH's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 69%, which is 23 percentage points above the Arkansas average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 91%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Evergreen Living Center At Stagecoach?
State health inspectors documented 24 deficiencies at EVERGREEN LIVING CENTER AT STAGECOACH during 2022 to 2025. These included: 24 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Evergreen Living Center At Stagecoach?
EVERGREEN LIVING CENTER AT STAGECOACH 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 ANTHONY & BRYAN ADAMS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 116 certified beds and approximately 94 residents (about 81% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in BRYANT, Arkansas.
How Does Evergreen Living Center At Stagecoach Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, EVERGREEN LIVING CENTER AT STAGECOACH's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (69%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Evergreen Living Center At Stagecoach?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Evergreen Living Center At Stagecoach Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, EVERGREEN LIVING CENTER AT STAGECOACH 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 Evergreen Living Center At Stagecoach Stick Around?
Staff turnover at EVERGREEN LIVING CENTER AT STAGECOACH is high. At 69%, the facility is 23 percentage points above the Arkansas average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 91%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Evergreen Living Center At Stagecoach Ever Fined?
EVERGREEN LIVING CENTER AT STAGECOACH 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 Evergreen Living Center At Stagecoach on Any Federal Watch List?
EVERGREEN LIVING CENTER AT STAGECOACH 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.