BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Butterfield Trail Village has received an F grade for its trust score, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #186 out of 218 facilities in Arkansas places it in the bottom half, and it is #11 out of 12 in Washington County, meaning only one local option is better. While the facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 6 in 2024 to 2 in 2025, it still faces serious challenges, including $89,240 in fines, which is higher than 98% of Arkansas facilities, suggesting repeated compliance problems. Staffing is a relative strength with a 4-star rating and 0% turnover, indicating that staff members are stable and familiar with the residents. However, serious incidents have been reported, such as a failure to document a critical medication for a resident and a lack of proper emergency preparedness, raising concerns about patient safety and care quality.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Arkansas
- #186/218
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- Turnover data not reported for this facility.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $89,240 in fines. Lower than most Arkansas facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 46 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Arkansas. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 21 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
Below Arkansas average (3.1)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Well above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record
Mar 2025
2 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(H)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, it was determined that t...
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
Deficiency F0602
(Tag F0602)
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 maintain the manufacturer's integrity of a sealed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2024
2 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews, record review, facility document review, facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to a resident was free from a significant medication error for 1 (Resid...
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
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
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 dispense a pharmacy bubble packaged pain medicatio...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2024
4 deficiencies
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 observations, interviews, record review, and facility document review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure dignity was maintained when providing wound care for 1 resident (Residen...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure oxygen was administered only when ordered by a physician to prevent potential respiratory complications for 1 (Resident...
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, and facility document review, it was determined the facility failed to maintain infection control practices as evidenced by wound care being provided ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0661
(Tag F0661)
Minor procedural issue · 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 a discharge summary was provided for 1 (Resident #45) of 1 s...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
7 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to identify the risk of side rail entrapment which resulted in actual...
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
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Deficiency Text Not Available
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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review, the facility failed to ensure an Individualized Plan of Care was implemented on the use of side rails and the potential for entrapment for 1 (Resident #7) of 37 (Residents #1, ...
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
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was adequately assessed for possible entrapment risk prior to utilization of bed rails, to prevent potentia...
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
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident medication orders and pharmacist reviews and recommendations were reviewed and signed timely by the Physician for 5 (Resid...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food items stored in the refrigerator, freezer...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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 F0909
(Tag F0909)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to include the ongoing monitoring of bed siderails as part of their routine maintenance program for 40 beds observed during initial screening o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2023
1 deficiency
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff reported allegations of verbal abuse in a timely manner, which resulted in failure to ensure an investigation wa...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
1 deficiency
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
Deficiency F0563
(Tag F0563)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure restrictions were not implemented for visitation during a Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak in the facility. This failed practice had...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2022
4 deficiencies
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 meals were prepared and served in accordance with the planned written menu to meet the nutritional needs of the residen...
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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure 3 of 3 clothes dryers remained free of lint build-up to decrease the potential for fire and loss of laundry services for 1 of 1 laundr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
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 physician completed an evaluation and documented the rat...
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
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 harm violation(s), $89,240 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 21 deficiencies on record, including 3 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $89,240 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Arkansas. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (15/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Butterfield Trail Village's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Butterfield Trail Village Staffed?
CMS rates BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes.
What Have Inspectors Found at Butterfield Trail Village?
State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE during 2022 to 2025. These included: 3 that caused actual resident harm, 17 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Butterfield Trail Village?
BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 87 certified beds and approximately 41 residents (about 47% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in FAYETTEVILLE, Arkansas.
How Does Butterfield Trail Village Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.1 and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Butterfield Trail Village?
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 Butterfield Trail Village Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE 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 1-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 Butterfield Trail Village Stick Around?
BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.
Was Butterfield Trail Village Ever Fined?
BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE has been fined $89,240 across 1 penalty action. This is above the Arkansas average of $33,971. 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 Butterfield Trail Village on Any Federal Watch List?
BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE 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.