NIGHTINGALE AT CROSSETT
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Nightingale at Crossett has a Trust Grade of D, which indicates below-average care with some significant concerns. The facility ranks #158 out of 218 in Arkansas, placing it in the bottom half of nursing homes in the state, and it is the second option among two facilities in Ashley County, meaning there is only one other choice available locally. Unfortunately, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 6 in 2023 to 11 in 2024. While staffing turnover is relatively low at 42%, which is better than the state average, the overall staffing rating is only 2 out of 5 stars. The facility has incurred $12,353 in fines, which is concerning as it is higher than 87% of Arkansas facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance issues. On the positive side, there is average RN coverage, which is important for catching potential problems. However, there have been specific incidents noted, such as expired food not being removed from a resident's cooler, and a failure to properly maintain food items, which poses a risk for foodborne illness. Additionally, the facility did not adequately assess the staffing needs of all resident units, indicating potential gaps in care. Overall, families should weigh these strengths and weaknesses carefully when considering this nursing home.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Arkansas
- #158/218
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 42% turnover. Near Arkansas's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $12,353 in fines. Lower than most Arkansas facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 20 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Arkansas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 28 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (42%)
6 points below Arkansas average of 48%
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below Arkansas average (3.1)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Near Arkansas avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 28 deficiencies on record
Sept 2024
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed ensure that 1 (Resident #25) sampled resident's dignity was maintained while receiving care.
The findi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0567
(Tag F0567)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents had access to their personal funds through the week and on weekends.
The findings a...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 interviews, the facility failed to notify the proper state authority when aware that one (Resident #5) sampled Resident had a new diagnosis of a mental disorder.
The findin...
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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure nail care was consistently provided to promote good grooming and personal hygiene for 1 (Resident #18) resident review...
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, record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube (a feeding tube inserted through the belly an...
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, interview, record review, and facility document review. the facility failed to ensure an indwelling catheter tube was secured to a resident's leg for 1 (Resident #41) of 1 sample...
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 record review, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure and provide pharmaceutical services which included accurate administration of all drugs and/or biologics t...
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed Enhanced Barrier Precautions(EBP) for a resident with a Percutaneous Endoscopic ...
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, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure expired food was removed from a resident's bedside cooler for 1 (Resident #9) of 1 sampled resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0838
(Tag F0838)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the facility assessment included pertinent information to assure the necessary care and resources were allocated to meet the needs o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
6 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 interview, the facility failed to ensure written notification of transfer/discharge to the hospital was provided to the resident and/or resident's representative, and state ...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set [MDS] assessment accurately reflected a level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review [PASAR...
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 a resident received antibiotics as ordered by the physician. This failed practice affected 1 resident (R#32) and had th...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain an effective infection control program design...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and record review the facility failed to provide a safe, comfortable, home like environment for 10 sampled ...
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, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure dented can was discarded to prevent bacteria growth food item stored in in the freezer was covered and sealed to minimi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2022
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure proper infection control techniques were used during a wound treatment promote the healing of a pressure ulcer and preve...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0567
(Tag F0567)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who had a resident trust account with the facility received monthly applicable interest deposited into the account of each...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0569
(Tag F0569)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on Interview and Record Review, the facility failed to ensure residents that received Medicaid benefits were notified when the amount in the resident's account reached $200 less than the SSI res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
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 notify the Resident and Resident Representative in writing of the r...
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 observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing, and humidifier bottle were dated for 1 (Resident #32). Failed to ensure oxygen tubing, was dated for 2 (...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review, the facility failed to ensure the Pharmacist provided documented Monthly Medication Reviews to be placed in Resident Medical Records of 5 Sampled Mix Residents (R#6, 21, 26, 27...
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, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure that visitors were screened and given instructi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0887
(Tag F0887)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, facility failed to ensure COVID-19 vaccinations were provided to residents who did not sign a declination for 2 (Resident #22 & R31) of 5 (Resident #2, R12, R22, ...
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 foods stored in the refrigerators, freezers, and dry storage were consistently dated & labeled of when received, opene...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0577
(Tag F0577)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents, resident representatives/family, and visitors had the right to examine the results of all surveys of the fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure daily menu and updated with changes. This failed practice had the potential to affect xx residents who receive meals from the kitchen,...
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.
- • 42% turnover. Below Arkansas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 28 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • $12,353 in fines. Above average for Arkansas. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade D (48/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Nightingale At Crossett's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns NIGHTINGALE AT CROSSETT an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Arkansas, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Nightingale At Crossett Staffed?
CMS rates NIGHTINGALE AT CROSSETT's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 42%, compared to the Arkansas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Nightingale At Crossett?
State health inspectors documented 28 deficiencies at NIGHTINGALE AT CROSSETT during 2022 to 2024. These included: 26 with potential for harm and 2 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Nightingale At Crossett?
NIGHTINGALE AT CROSSETT 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 NIGHTINGALE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 55 certified beds and approximately 59 residents (about 107% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in CROSSETT, Arkansas.
How Does Nightingale At Crossett Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, NIGHTINGALE AT CROSSETT's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (42%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Nightingale At Crossett?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.
Is Nightingale At Crossett Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, NIGHTINGALE AT CROSSETT 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 2-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 Nightingale At Crossett Stick Around?
NIGHTINGALE AT CROSSETT has a staff turnover rate of 42%, 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 Nightingale At Crossett Ever Fined?
NIGHTINGALE AT CROSSETT has been fined $12,353 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Arkansas average of $33,202. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Nightingale At Crossett on Any Federal Watch List?
NIGHTINGALE AT CROSSETT 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.