METHODIST HEALTH AND REHAB
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Methodist Health and Rehab in Fort Smith, Arkansas has a Trust Grade of C+, which means it is slightly above average but still has notable room for improvement. It ranks #112 out of 218 facilities in the state, placing it in the bottom half, and #5 of 8 in Sebastian County, indicating that there are better local options available. The facility is currently improving, with a decrease in reported issues from 7 in 2023 to 6 in 2024. Staffing is rated at 3 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 46%, which is slightly better than the state average, suggesting some staff stability, but it has concerning RN coverage that is less than 96% of other facilities in Arkansas. While there have been no fines reported, some recent inspections raised concerns about food handling practices. For example, dietary staff failed to wash their hands after cleaning food carts, and food items were not stored properly, which could lead to potential foodborne illnesses. Additionally, mealtime scheduling has been inconsistent, with residents reporting delays in receiving their meals, which could affect their overall satisfaction and health. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing stability and no fines, families should be aware of the concerning food safety practices and the need for improved meal service reliability.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Arkansas
- #112/218
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 46% 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 13 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
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in 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
The Ugly 24 deficiencies on record
Oct 2024
6 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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure administration of correct medication to correct resident for 1 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure pureed food items were blended to a smooth, lump-free consistency to minimize the risk of choking or other complications for residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview, and record review the facility failed to formulate an advance directive or have an acknowledgement of an advance directive on file for 2 (Resident # 108, Resident #10) of 8 sampled...
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 interview, the facility failed to ensure 2 (room [ROOM NUMBER], and room [ROOM NUMBER]) rooms were clea...
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
(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 foods were covered or sealed in the freezer and or refrigerator; dietary staff thoroughly wash...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that privacy was maintained during incontinent care for 1 (Resident #105) of 18 (Resident #3, #9, #17, #18, #33, #44, #...
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, and interview the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident #70) of 1 sampled resident that depended on staff for positioning was properly positioned in bed.
The findings are:
Resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a catheter was secured to prevent the potential for trauma for 1 (Resident #3) of 4 (Resident #3, #17, #18, and #70) sa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a PRN (as needed) medication was reviewed every 14 days for 1 (Resident # 110) of 3 (Resident #26, #103, and 110) sampled residents. ...
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 nail care was provided to two (Resident #18, #75) of 23 sampled residents (Resident #34, #17, #81, #37, #9, #26, #3, #98...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that medications were dated when opened, fai...
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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure foods stored in the refrigerator, and dry storage area were co...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 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 technique was utilized during wound treatment by staff not changing gloves; allowing soiled dr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure interventions were developed, care planned, and implemented to address contractures and positioning devices to prevent f...
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
3. Resident #40 had diagnoses of Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 3 with Heart Failure, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and Osteoarthritis. The Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 3/17/22 documented the r...
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure toenail care was regularly provided to promote good foot care for 2 (Residents #39 and 357) of 18 (Residents #12, #8, #...
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
5. Resident #61 had diagnoses of Unspecified Dementia without Behavioral Disturbance, Chronic Diastolic (Congestive) Heart Failure and Orthostatic Hypotension. The MDS with an ARD of 3/31/22 documente...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician orders for sliding scale insulin administration were followed to prevent significant medication errors which could result ...
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 in accordance with the planned, written menu to meet residents' nutritional needs for 1 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure pureed food items were blended to smooth, lump-free consistency to minimize the risk of choking or other complications and improve pal...
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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure implementation of proper infection prevention and control practices to prevent the development and transmission of COVI...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0809
(Tag F0809)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' meals were consistently served at regularly scheduled times to provide residents with a dependable eating sc...
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 and changed gloves between dirty and clean tasks and before handling clean equipment or food items; f...
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 Methodist Health And Rehab's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns METHODIST HEALTH 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 Methodist Health And Rehab Staffed?
CMS rates METHODIST HEALTH AND REHAB's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 46%, compared to the Arkansas average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Methodist Health And Rehab?
State health inspectors documented 24 deficiencies at METHODIST HEALTH AND REHAB during 2022 to 2024. These included: 24 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Methodist Health And Rehab?
METHODIST HEALTH AND REHAB 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 145 certified beds and approximately 123 residents (about 85% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in FORT SMITH, Arkansas.
How Does Methodist Health And Rehab Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, METHODIST HEALTH AND REHAB's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (46%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Methodist Health 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 Methodist Health And Rehab Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, METHODIST 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 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 Methodist Health And Rehab Stick Around?
METHODIST HEALTH AND REHAB has a staff turnover rate of 46%, 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 Methodist Health And Rehab Ever Fined?
METHODIST 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 Methodist Health And Rehab on Any Federal Watch List?
METHODIST 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.