CHAMBERS HEALTH AND REHABILITATION
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Chambers Health and Rehabilitation has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for families seeking care. It ranks #5 out of 218 facilities in Arkansas, placing it in the top tier, and #1 out of 7 in Lonoke County, meaning it is the best option locally. The facility is trending positively, showing improvement as issues have decreased from 5 in 2023 to 3 in 2024. Staffing is a strength, with a good rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 33%, which is lower than the state average. While there are no fines on record, some concerns were noted, including expired food items in the kitchen and unsafe hot water temperatures that could scald residents. Additionally, there was a medication error rate of 5.71%, indicating room for improvement in medication management. Overall, while there are some weaknesses, the positive aspects of staffing and rankings suggest that it is a solid choice for many families.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Arkansas
- #5/218
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 33% 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 ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 17 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Arkansas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 13 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 (33%)
15 points below Arkansas average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
13pts below Arkansas avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 13 deficiencies on record
Aug 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the required personal protective equipment (PPE) was utilized by staff prior to entering a resident's room who was on ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure expired food items were promptly removed from stock to maintain freshness and prevent potential cross contamination, failed to ensure ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
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
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents medication were not left at bedside for one (Resident #4) of four sampled residents. The findings are:
Resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
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 record review, and interview, the facility failed to review and revise the care plan with change of resident orders for oxygen therapy for 1 (Resident #15) of 2 sampled residents (resident #1...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain the hot water temperature in resident rooms ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility medication error rate was 5.71%. The findings are:
During the medication pass observation, the error rate was 5.71 %.
A review of Reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure identified skin concerns were reported to the ...
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
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the oxygen tubing, nebulizer tubing, and stora...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2022
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
3. Resident #37 had diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Coronary Artery Disease and Atrial Fibrillation. The admission MDS with an ARD of 3/26/22 documented the resident scored 14 (13-...
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 fingernails were cleaned and trimmed to promote good personal hygiene for 2 (Residents #10 and #40) of 18 (Residents #4...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0687
(Tag F0687)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure toenail care was regularly provided to promote good foot care for 1 (Resident #5) of 18 (Residents #12, #8, #50, #52, #...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a urinary catheter drainage bag and tubing were maintained in a position below the level of the bladder to prevent the ...
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
2. Resident #37 had diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Coronary Artery Disease and Atrial Fibrillation. The admission MDS with an ARD of 3/26/22 documented the resident scored 14 (13-...
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
- • Grade B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Arkansas.
- • 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.
- • 33% turnover. Below Arkansas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 13 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Chambers's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns CHAMBERS HEALTH AND REHABILITATION an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Chambers Staffed?
CMS rates CHAMBERS HEALTH AND REHABILITATION's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 33%, compared to the Arkansas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Chambers?
State health inspectors documented 13 deficiencies at CHAMBERS HEALTH AND REHABILITATION during 2022 to 2024. These included: 13 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Chambers?
CHAMBERS HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 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 90 certified beds and approximately 51 residents (about 57% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in CARLISLE, Arkansas.
How Does Chambers Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, CHAMBERS HEALTH AND REHABILITATION's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (33%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Chambers?
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 Chambers Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, CHAMBERS HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 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 5-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 Chambers Stick Around?
CHAMBERS HEALTH AND REHABILITATION has a staff turnover rate of 33%, 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 Chambers Ever Fined?
CHAMBERS HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 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 Chambers on Any Federal Watch List?
CHAMBERS HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 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.