SALEM PLACE NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, INC
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Salem Place Nursing and Rehabilitation Center has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating that it is slightly above average but not outstanding. In Arkansas, it ranks #120 out of 218 facilities, placing it in the bottom half, and #4 out of 6 in Faulkner County, meaning there are only a few local options that are better. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 14 in 2023 to 9 in 2024, and it boasts excellent staffing with a 5/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 39%, which is well below the state average of 50%. While there are no fines on record, which is a positive sign, there are concerns regarding dietary practices and infection control; for example, staff failed to wash hands properly before handling food, and a glucometer was not disinfected between uses, potentially risking residents' health. Overall, while there are notable strengths, families should be aware of these weaknesses as they consider this facility.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Arkansas
- #120/218
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 39% 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 24 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Arkansas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 33 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent 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 (39%)
9 points below Arkansas average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Arkansas average (3.1)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Arkansas avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 33 deficiencies on record
Aug 2024
9 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 observations, interviews, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to notify the ombudsman of a hospital transfer for 1 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observations, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a laundry linen delivery cart on W Hall was covered during delivery of clean personal laundry to prevent th...
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, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment to accurately reflect the residents discharge status f...
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure hazards were removed from resident areas as evidenced by medications left at the bedside for 1 (Resident #64) of 1 res...
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 all medications were safely stored and secured in to prevent accidental ingestion and or injury, as evidenced by a tub...
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, the facility failed to ensure meals were prepared and served according to the planned written menu to meet the nutritional needs of the residents fo...
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 nutritive value and taste that were acceptable to the residents to impro...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
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 ensure the influenza and/or pneumococcal immunizations were admini...
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 facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff practiced good hand washing to prevent potential cross contamination, Dairy products were maint...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 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
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure call lights were within reach to enable residents to call for any necessary assistance for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 sample ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
13 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
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 accurately record the Resident Assessment for 1 (Resident #13) of 1...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 Physician Orders were transcribed accurately for 1 (Resident #8) of 1 sampled resident to ensure residents orders recei...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Dental Services
(Tag F0791)
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 provide routine dental services for 1 (Resident #8) of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure wheelchair arm rests were free of rips and tears for 2 (Residents #1 and #2) of 2 sampled residents and failed to ensu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the annual comprehensive resident assessments were completed and transmitted within 14 calendar days to facilitate appropriate care ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0638
(Tag F0638)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the completion of the quarterly resident assessments within 14 days of the Assessment Reference Date (ARD) and submitted no later th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
2. A review of Resident #40's Care Plan, last revised on 02/04/20 noted the resident had a diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and noted a care plan for altered respiratory statu...
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. A Physicians Order with a start date of 05/08/20 documented Resident #40 was to receive oxygen at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula as needed.
a. A Physicians Order with a start date of 11/16/...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure licensed staff accurately documented the removal of narcotics at the time of administration, to ensure periodic accura...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 14. A facility policy titled, Medication, General Administration of, provided by the Administrator on [DATE] at 8:42 AM document...
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 stored in the two door ice cream freezer were properly sealed to prevent freezer burn dietary employees used clean utensils...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a multi-resident use glucometer was disinfected after use to prevent potential spread of infection for 2 (Residents #1...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
3. Resident #75 had diagnoses of Unspecified Dementia, Unspecified Severity, without Behavioral Disturbance, Psychotic Disturbance, Mood Disturbance, and Anxiety; Major Depressive Disorder, Single Epi...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2022
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed within 14 days after a significant change in condition was identifi...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set Assessment was accurately coded for ant...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
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 a baseline care plan was completed and the Compr...
Read full inspector narrative →
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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure reusable equipment was appropriately cleaned before and after use on a resident, and syringes used for medication were...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set Assessment was accurately coded for ant...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #66 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Aftercare following surgery on the Digestive System, Pe...
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 ensure residents smoking materials were securely mainta...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared by methods that maintained flavor and meals were served at temperatures that were acceptable to the r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all 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
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure food items stored in the refrigerator were covered or sealed; leftover food items were used properly to maintain food quality, and die...
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.
- • 39% turnover. Below Arkansas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 33 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Salem Place, Inc's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SALEM PLACE NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, INC 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 Salem Place, Inc Staffed?
CMS rates SALEM PLACE NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, INC's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 39%, compared to the Arkansas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Salem Place, Inc?
State health inspectors documented 33 deficiencies at SALEM PLACE NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, INC during 2022 to 2024. These included: 32 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Salem Place, Inc?
SALEM PLACE NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, INC 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 CENTRAL ARKANSAS NURSING CENTERS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 103 certified beds and approximately 84 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in CONWAY, Arkansas.
How Does Salem Place, Inc Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, SALEM PLACE NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, INC's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Salem Place, Inc?
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 Salem Place, Inc Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SALEM PLACE NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, INC 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 Salem Place, Inc Stick Around?
SALEM PLACE NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, INC has a staff turnover rate of 39%, 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 Salem Place, Inc Ever Fined?
SALEM PLACE NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, INC 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 Salem Place, Inc on Any Federal Watch List?
SALEM PLACE NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, INC 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.