WHITE RIVER HEALTHCARE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
White River Healthcare in Calico Rock, Arkansas, has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not exceptional. It ranks #137 out of 218 facilities in the state, placing it in the bottom half, and #2 out of 2 in Izard County, meaning there is only one local option that is better. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 8 in 2023 to 7 in 2024. Staffing is a strong point, with a 4/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 49%, which is slightly below the state average. While there have been no fines recorded, which is a positive sign, the facility has faced concerns such as failing to keep food storage equipment clean and not performing proper hand hygiene between residents, which raises potential health risks. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and no fines, families should consider the cleanliness issues and infection control practices before making a decision.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Arkansas
- #137/218
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 49% 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 ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 276 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Arkansas nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 17 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 average (3.1)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Arkansas avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record
Nov 2024
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and record interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the resident/representative or Power of Attorney (POA) in writing of the resident's transfer/discharge...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to notify resident representatives or Power of Attorney (POA) in writing of the bed hold policy upon a resident's trans...
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
Through observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure one of one resident sampled (Resident #31) environment remained free of accident hazards as was possible.
The findings ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Through investigation and record review the facility failed to employ staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service.
The findings...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0848
(Tag F0848)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Through record review, interviews and policy of arbitration agreement the facility failed to ensure that four of four residents sampled for arbitration agreements (Resident #7, #13,#16 and #22) or rep...
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
Based on observations, interviews, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene was performed between r...
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
Through observation, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that equipment was in a clean, safe, useable condition and food was stored in a safe and sanitary manner.
The findings...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0570
(Tag F0570)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Surety Bond was current and up to date, to assure the secu...
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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan to address the need for oxygen for 1 (Resident #20) sampled resident. The findi...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that physicians orders were followed for oxygen...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure Activities of Daily Living were maintained to pr...
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** Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure that standard and transmission-based precautions of sanitizing,...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a Care Plan for a resident exhibiting exit seeking behaviors for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 (#1, #2 and #3) sampled residen...
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
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an accurate medical record regarding a...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to prevent a cognitively impaired resident from exiting the facility w...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2022
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a bruise of unknown origin was investigated, re...
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 dishware is stored in a clean location, not exposed to dust, dietary equipment is cleaned and maintained in good working condition, and...
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.
- • 17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is White River Healthcare's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns WHITE RIVER HEALTHCARE an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Arkansas, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is White River Healthcare Staffed?
CMS rates WHITE RIVER HEALTHCARE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 49%, compared to the Arkansas average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at White River Healthcare?
State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at WHITE RIVER HEALTHCARE during 2022 to 2024. These included: 17 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates White River Healthcare?
WHITE RIVER HEALTHCARE is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 70 certified beds and approximately 40 residents (about 57% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in CALICO ROCK, Arkansas.
How Does White River Healthcare Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, WHITE RIVER HEALTHCARE's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (49%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting White River Healthcare?
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 White River Healthcare Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, WHITE RIVER HEALTHCARE 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 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 White River Healthcare Stick Around?
WHITE RIVER HEALTHCARE has a staff turnover rate of 49%, 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 White River Healthcare Ever Fined?
WHITE RIVER HEALTHCARE 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 White River Healthcare on Any Federal Watch List?
WHITE RIVER HEALTHCARE 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.