OAK RIDGE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Oak Ridge Health and Rehabilitation has a Trust Grade of D, which indicates below-average performance and some concerns regarding resident care. It ranks #115 out of 218 facilities in Arkansas, placing it in the bottom half of the state, and #4 out of 5 in Union County, meaning only one local facility is better. The facility is showing signs of improvement, reducing its issues from 11 in 2023 to just 3 in 2024. While staffing is relatively stable with a 38% turnover rate, which is better than the state average, the facility has incurred $74,825 in fines, a figure higher than 95% of Arkansas facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance issues. Recent inspections revealed critical concerns, such as a resident being able to exit the building unattended, which poses a serious safety risk, and failures in food safety practices that could lead to health issues for residents. Overall, while there are some strengths, families should be aware of the significant weaknesses as well.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Arkansas
- #115/218
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 38% turnover. Near Arkansas's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $74,825 in fines. Lower than most Arkansas facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 18 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Arkansas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 20 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
-
Staff turnover below average (38%)
10 points below Arkansas average of 48%
Facility shows strength in 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
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
Sept 2024
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
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, and interview it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the tub room door on the Memory Unit was locked to ensure vulnerable residents were free from accidents and inj...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure menus were prepared and followed for 1 of 2 meals observed.
The findings are:
On 9/24/24 at 1:10 PM, the menu for the ...
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 observations, record review, and interview, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety.
The finding ar...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
9 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to comprehensively assess the resident's physical, mental and psychosocial needs to identify risks and impact of the resident function for 1 (...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to complete a Significant Change in a Minimum Data Set (MDS) after a decline in two or more Activities of daily living (ADL) for ...
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** Surveyor: [NAME], [NAME]
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (M...
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 observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to reassess the effectiveness of interventions and review and revise the care plan to meet the resident's needs for 1 (Resident #...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that the facility provided privacy to promote dignity for 1 (R#58) of 1 sampled resident who had a catheter and for 1 (...
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, and interview, the facility failed to ensure expired and unlabeled medications were removed from the medication cart and placed into an area for destruction to prevent potential ...
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
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide pneumococcal immunizations as required or appropriate for 3 (Resident #49, #51, #62) of 5 (#49, #51, #62, #42, #65) sampled residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a qualified dietitian was utilized in overseeing meal preparation, menu planning, and managing dietary operations to prevent foodborn...
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, failed to ensure dented food cans were promptly removed/ discarded to prevent the growth of bacteria; 1of 1 ice scoops were maintained in a clean and...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
2 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident who wore an (electronic wander management device), did not exit the building unattended for 1 (Resident #1) ...
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility staff failed to report an elopement to the Office of Long Term Care for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 (Residents #1, #2 and #3) case mix residents who were an...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2022
6 deficiencies
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an effective system was in place for residents who have authorized the facility to manage their personal funds to access their perso...
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
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure care plan meetings were held and residents and families were invited to the Care Plan meetings to participate in treatment options ...
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 groomed to promote good personal hygiene and grooming for 2 (Residents #11 and #34) of 16 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a physician-ordered narcotic pain medication was available for administration as ordered to provide pain management, pr...
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 food was prepared by methods that maintained appearance; hot foods were served hot and cold foods were served cold to m...
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 dietary staff washed their hands before handling clean equipment or food items to prevent potential food borne illness for residents w...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 38% turnover. Below Arkansas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), $74,825 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 20 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $74,825 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Arkansas. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade D (43/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Oak Ridge's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns OAK RIDGE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 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 Oak Ridge Staffed?
CMS rates OAK RIDGE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 38%, compared to the Arkansas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Oak Ridge?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at OAK RIDGE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 19 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Oak Ridge?
OAK RIDGE 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 180 certified beds and approximately 80 residents (about 44% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in EL DORADO, Arkansas.
How Does Oak Ridge Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, OAK RIDGE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (38%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Oak Ridge?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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 facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is Oak Ridge Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, OAK RIDGE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Arkansas. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Oak Ridge Stick Around?
OAK RIDGE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION has a staff turnover rate of 38%, 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 Oak Ridge Ever Fined?
OAK RIDGE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION has been fined $74,825 across 2 penalty actions. This is above the Arkansas average of $33,827. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is Oak Ridge on Any Federal Watch List?
OAK RIDGE 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.