LAKE FOREST SENIOR LIVING AT HOT SPRINGS VILLAGE
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Lake Forest Senior Living at Hot Springs Village has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided at this facility. Ranked #149 out of 218 nursing homes in Arkansas, they fall into the bottom half of all facilities in the state, and they are ranked #8 out of 9 in Garland County, meaning there is only one local option that is better. The situation at the facility is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 5 in 2023 to 6 in 2024, and they have a concerning staffing turnover rate of 73%, which is well above the state average. While they do have good RN coverage, with more registered nurses than 94% of facilities in Arkansas, they have faced serious problems, such as failing to follow a resident's request for resuscitation, which resulted in a critical incident. Additionally, issues with food safety and the security of residents’ health information have been reported, indicating weaknesses that families should consider carefully before making a decision.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Arkansas
- #149/218
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 73% turnover. Very high, 25 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $13,627 in fines. Lower than most Arkansas facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 36 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Arkansas. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 18 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
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Arkansas average (3.1)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
26pts above Arkansas avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
25 points above Arkansas average of 48%
The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record
Sept 2024
1 deficiency
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
Deficiency F0678
(Tag F0678)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow residents request to in...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
5 deficiencies
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to implement and carry out physician's orders for woun...
Read full inspector narrative →
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, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to secure residents private health information on facility...
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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure harmful chemicals, nail trimmers, and razors were stored securely to promote resident safety for 1 (Resident #135) o...
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, and record review, the facility failed to perform proper hand hygiene during resident care for 1 (Resident #23) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for tube feeding.
Find...
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 reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure serving items were properly handled, hand sanitation was utilized, the kitchen was free from buildup of unknown subst...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that baths were provided for 1 (Resident #184) of 7 (Residents #5, 9, 10, 17, 182, 184, 187) sampled residents that relied on the fa...
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
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 a resident did not leave the building unattended for 1 (Resid...
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 dressings were replaced for 1 (Resident #13) of 3 (Residents #13, 15, 17) sampled residents who had a Physician's orde...
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, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure an oxygen mask was covered and dated for 1(Resident #5) of 4 (Resident #5, #14, #15, and #17) sampled residents that ha...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
FACILITY
Kitchen
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to store food items in a manner that would prevent contamination. This failed practice had the potential to affect all 29 resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2022
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the baseline care plan included the use of oxygen and CPAP (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure) to provide staff with ...
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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a portable oxygen cylinder was stored safely when not in use to prevent a potential accident for 1 (Resident #77) of 6...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure there was physician order for the use of a CPAP (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure) and the mask was stored appropri...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure expired milk was discarded to prevent the potential for food borne illness for residents who received milk with meals ...
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, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents seated at the same table were served their meals at the same time to allow the residents to eat together and ...
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
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet residents' needs...
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 interview, the facility failed to review and revise the Care Plan to meet the needs of the residents who had a history of falls for 1 (Resident #12) of 13 (Resident #16, 24,...
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?"
- "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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 18 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $13,627 in fines. Above average for Arkansas. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade F (31/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Lake Forest Senior Living At Hot Springs Village's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns LAKE FOREST SENIOR LIVING AT HOT SPRINGS VILLAGE an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Lake Forest Senior Living At Hot Springs Village Staffed?
CMS rates LAKE FOREST SENIOR LIVING AT HOT SPRINGS VILLAGE's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 73%, which is 26 percentage points above the Arkansas average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 91%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Lake Forest Senior Living At Hot Springs Village?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at LAKE FOREST SENIOR LIVING AT HOT SPRINGS VILLAGE during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 17 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 Lake Forest Senior Living At Hot Springs Village?
LAKE FOREST SENIOR LIVING AT HOT SPRINGS VILLAGE is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by CONTINUUM HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 50 certified beds and approximately 31 residents (about 62% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in HOT SPRINGS VILLAGE, Arkansas.
How Does Lake Forest Senior Living At Hot Springs Village Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, LAKE FOREST SENIOR LIVING AT HOT SPRINGS VILLAGE's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (73%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Lake Forest Senior Living At Hot Springs Village?
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?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Lake Forest Senior Living At Hot Springs Village Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, LAKE FOREST SENIOR LIVING AT HOT SPRINGS VILLAGE 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 2-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 Lake Forest Senior Living At Hot Springs Village Stick Around?
Staff turnover at LAKE FOREST SENIOR LIVING AT HOT SPRINGS VILLAGE is high. At 73%, the facility is 26 percentage points above the Arkansas average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 91%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. 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 Lake Forest Senior Living At Hot Springs Village Ever Fined?
LAKE FOREST SENIOR LIVING AT HOT SPRINGS VILLAGE has been fined $13,627 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Arkansas average of $33,215. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Lake Forest Senior Living At Hot Springs Village on Any Federal Watch List?
LAKE FOREST SENIOR LIVING AT HOT SPRINGS 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.