CHAPEL RIDGE HEALTH AND REHAB
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Chapel Ridge Health and Rehab in Fort Smith, Arkansas, has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good option for families considering nursing care. Ranking #58 out of 218 facilities in Arkansas places it in the top half, while its #3 position out of 8 in Sebastian County shows only two local homes are rated higher. The facility is improving, as it reduced issues from 12 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025. While staffing is average with a 3/5 rating and a concerning turnover rate of 60%, the absence of fines is a positive sign. However, there are some weaknesses, including less RN coverage than 83% of Arkansas facilities, which could affect care quality. Specific concerns include improper food storage practices and instances where residents did not receive their complete meals, highlighting areas needing attention.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Arkansas
- #58/218
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 60% 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 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
-
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
14pts above Arkansas avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
12 points above Arkansas average of 48%
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
May 2025
1 deficiency
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 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 [PASARR] under sect...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
12 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure foods in the freezer were sealed and contained to minimize the potential for foodborne illness and prevent cross contam...
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** 5. Resident #15 had diagnosis of Atrioventricular block, completed on 1-25-2021. The Annual MDS with an Assessment Reference Dat...
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 the facility failed to ensure a Minimum Data Set (MDS) accurately reflected the presence of contractures to bilateral wrists to facilitate planning, ...
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 that residents who required assistance with activities of daily living were regularly provided assistance with grooming...
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** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure necessary care and services were provided to m...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an order was made for Physical Therapy after the admission Assessment for 1 (Resident #66 ) of 1 sampled resident for ...
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 observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the environment was as free of potential acc...
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 the narcotics box was permanently affixed in 1 of 2 medication rooms (D Hall) refrigerator. The findings are:
On 2/14/...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0806
(Tag F0806)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #15 had diagnosis of Atrioventricular block. The Annual MDS with an ARD of 12/20/2023 documented the resident scored...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0865
(Tag F0865)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement program [QAPI] Committee developed and implemented appropriate plans of action to ...
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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure the staff's personal belongings were not stored on the laundry folding table with the resident ' s clothing and blankets. This failed ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to maintain residential rooms in a safe, clinical condition to provide ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent accident hazards as evidenced by staff not safely pushing 1 (Resident #2) of 2 (Residents #2 and #3) sampled residents who used a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
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 ensure two staff members were present when operating a Hoyer lift ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
5 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 F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete a Significant Change in Status Minimum Data Set (MDS) within 14 days of determining a decline in Activities of Daily Living (ADLs)...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that oxygen was addressed on the resident's Care Plan for 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
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
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 nebulizer tubing and Continuous Positive Airway...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the water temperatures remained at a temperature below 120 degrees Fahrenheit (F) for 3 (Residents #13, R #80, and R #13...
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
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 foods stored in the refrigerator were labeled, dated when received, opened, and made; failed to ensure dietary staff wa...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "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.
- • 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • 60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Chapel Ridge Health And Rehab's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns CHAPEL RIDGE HEALTH AND REHAB an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Arkansas, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Chapel Ridge Health And Rehab Staffed?
CMS rates CHAPEL RIDGE HEALTH AND REHAB's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 14 percentage points above the Arkansas average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Chapel Ridge Health And Rehab?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at CHAPEL RIDGE HEALTH AND REHAB during 2022 to 2025. These included: 20 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Chapel Ridge Health And Rehab?
CHAPEL RIDGE HEALTH 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 CENTRAL ARKANSAS NURSING CENTERS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 74 certified beds and approximately 68 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in FORT SMITH, Arkansas.
How Does Chapel Ridge Health And Rehab Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, CHAPEL RIDGE HEALTH AND REHAB's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (60%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Chapel Ridge Health And Rehab?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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 high staff turnover rate.
Is Chapel Ridge Health And Rehab Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, CHAPEL RIDGE HEALTH 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 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Chapel Ridge Health And Rehab Stick Around?
Staff turnover at CHAPEL RIDGE HEALTH AND REHAB is high. At 60%, the facility is 14 percentage points above the Arkansas average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Chapel Ridge Health And Rehab Ever Fined?
CHAPEL RIDGE HEALTH 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 Chapel Ridge Health And Rehab on Any Federal Watch List?
CHAPEL RIDGE HEALTH 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.