NORTH HILLS LIFE CARE AND REHAB
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
North Hills Life Care and Rehab in Fayetteville, Arkansas, has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is decent and slightly above average among nursing homes. It ranks #114 out of 218 in the state, placing it in the bottom half, and #7 out of 12 in Washington County, meaning there are only a few local options that are better. Unfortunately, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 5 in 2023 to 7 in 2024. Staffing is relatively stable with a turnover rate of 45%, which is below the state average, but the overall staffing rating is only average. While the facility has not incurred any fines, which is a positive aspect, there have been several concerning incidents, such as a lack of proper medication labeling and food safety practices. For example, medications were not dated upon opening, and staff served food without ensuring sanitary conditions, potentially risking contamination for residents. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing stability and no fines, the increasing number of concerns and average health inspection ratings are important factors for families to consider.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Arkansas
- #114/218
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 45% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Arkansas facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 19 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Arkansas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 24 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
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%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 24 deficiencies on record
Aug 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews, facility record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide privacy during care for 1 (Resident #62) of 1 resident reviewed for privacy.
Findings ...
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, record review, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure physician orders were followed for 1 (Resident #62) of 1 resident observed receiving medications fro...
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 policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff performed hand hygiene during meal assistance; failed to utilize Enhanced Barrier Prec...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, interviews, facility document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to write the open date on medications for 4 (Resident #5, #32, #33, and #35) and maintained...
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
Deficiency Text Not Available
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
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
Deficiency F0552
(Tag F0552)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the Resident's representative of changes to medication for one (Resident #1) of three (Resident #1, #2, and #3) sampled...
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
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 a complete surgical history was obtained and su...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0568
(Tag F0568)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure generally accepted accounting principles were followed to ensure insurance premiums were paid timely for 1 (Resident #42) of 3 (Res...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
2. Resident #227 had diagnoses Acute Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia and Multiple Myeloma not having achieved Remission.
a. The Physician Orders dated 05/18/23 documented Oxygen @ [at] 2L/Min [liters...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurately coded fo...
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 was administered at the Physician Ordered rate for 2 (Residents #11 and #227) and oxygen tubing was changed wee...
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 food was served in a sanitary manner to prevent cross contamination for 2 (Residents #26 and #65) of 5 (Residents #22 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2022
12 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0661
(Tag F0661)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a discharge summary was developed to include a recapitulation of the resident's stay, a final summary of the resident's status, and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 record review, the facility failed to ensure a side rail removed from a bed was not left on the floor to prevent a potential accident/hazard for 1 (Resident #8) of 17 (Residen...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Resident #60 had diagnoses of Sepsis, Cognitive Communication Deficit and Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 3. The Significant Cha...
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents who have authorized the facility to manage personal funds are given instructions on how to request their personal funds af...
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
5. Resident #24 had a diagnosis of Cerebral Infarction. The Annual Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date of 12/19/21 documented the resident scored 0 (0-7 indicates severely cognitively i...
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 observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a person centered comprehensive care plan was d...
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, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure baths and/or showers were regularly provided to promote good personal hygiene and grooming for 1 (Residents #53) of 29 ...
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, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure foot care was regularly provided and toenails were clean, trimmed, and free of jagged edges to prevent potential compli...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the catheter bag remained below the bladder dur...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Resident #7 had diagnoses of Acute Respiratory Failure, and Personal History of COVID-19. The Significant Change of Condition...
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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Drug Regimen Review physician orders were acted upon in a timely manner to discontinue an unnecessary psychotropic medication fo...
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 medications were administered only in the presence of docum...
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.
- • 24 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is North Hills Life Care And Rehab's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns NORTH HILLS LIFE CARE AND REHAB 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 North Hills Life Care And Rehab Staffed?
CMS rates NORTH HILLS LIFE CARE AND REHAB's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 45%, compared to the Arkansas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 67%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at North Hills Life Care And Rehab?
State health inspectors documented 24 deficiencies at NORTH HILLS LIFE CARE AND REHAB during 2022 to 2024. These included: 24 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates North Hills Life Care And Rehab?
NORTH HILLS LIFE CARE AND REHAB 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 84 certified beds and approximately 83 residents (about 99% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in FAYETTEVILLE, Arkansas.
How Does North Hills Life Care And Rehab Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, NORTH HILLS LIFE CARE AND REHAB's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (45%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting North Hills Life Care And Rehab?
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 North Hills Life Care And Rehab Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, NORTH HILLS LIFE CARE AND REHAB 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 North Hills Life Care And Rehab Stick Around?
NORTH HILLS LIFE CARE AND REHAB has a staff turnover rate of 45%, 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 North Hills Life Care And Rehab Ever Fined?
NORTH HILLS LIFE CARE AND REHAB 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 North Hills Life Care And Rehab on Any Federal Watch List?
NORTH HILLS LIFE CARE AND REHAB 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.