THE SPRINGS OF PARK AVE
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
The Springs of Park Ave in Hot Springs, Arkansas has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families seeking care, though it is not the highest-rated option. It ranks #90 out of 218 facilities in the state, placing it in the top half, and #4 out of 9 in Garland County, meaning only three local options are better. The facility is improving, having reduced its issues from 10 in 2024 to 5 in 2025. Staffing is rated average with a turnover rate of 55%, which is close to the state average, and it has solid RN coverage, exceeding 83% of Arkansas facilities. Notably, there have been no fines recorded, which is a positive sign. However, there were concerning findings, such as the failure to properly close food packages and maintain sanitary conditions, which could pose health risks, and a high medication error rate of 12%, indicating some care concerns in medication management. Overall, while there are strengths, families should be aware of these weaknesses when considering this facility.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Arkansas
- #90/218
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 55% 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 29 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
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 20 deficiencies on record
Dec 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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to report to the state survey agency when a resident, that was care planned not to leave the facility without supervision, left t...
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that staff followed Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) by wearing required Personal Protection...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
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 an advanced directive was readily accessible in the electron...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a baseline care was completed within 48 hours ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
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 care plans were reviewed and revised at least annually, or w...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure enteral feeding and flush bags were properly labeled with the necessary information to promote continuity of care and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a linen cart was covered while on a resident hall, failed to ensure hand hygiene was performed and proper protective e...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than 5%. An observation of a medication pass performed on 08/16/23 at 7:53 AM result...
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 observation, record review, interview, it was determined that the facility failed to store controlled medications in a ...
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
Through observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure open food packages were properly closed, ensure walls and floors were in sanitary condition, canned goods were dent fr...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
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 Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) was c...
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
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a Comprehensive Care Plan that included a measurable focus, goals/outcomes, and interventions for 1 (Re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to implement interventions in a timely manner to prevent ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis facility for 1 (Resident #62) of 1 sampled resident reviewed...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0772
(Tag F0772)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure laboratory specimen collection supplies were r...
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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the laptop with the Medication Administration Record (MAR) was closed or covered when out of the Nurse's line of visio...
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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Medication Cart was locked when out of the Nurse's line of vision to prevent potential accident hazards. This fail...
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 an indwelling catheter tubing was secured with...
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** 2. Resident #35 had a diagnosis of COPD. The Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 02/02/23 documented the resident scored 11 (8-12 indic...
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 an indwelling catheter drainage bag was not on the floor to prevent the risk of infection for 1 (Resident #42) of 3 (R...
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.
- • 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is The Springs Of Park Ave's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns THE SPRINGS OF PARK AVE 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 The Springs Of Park Ave Staffed?
CMS rates THE SPRINGS OF PARK AVE's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 55%, compared to the Arkansas average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at The Springs Of Park Ave?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at THE SPRINGS OF PARK AVE during 2023 to 2024. These included: 20 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates The Springs Of Park Ave?
THE SPRINGS OF PARK AVE 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 THE SPRINGS ARKANSAS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 95 certified beds and approximately 72 residents (about 76% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in HOT SPRINGS, Arkansas.
How Does The Springs Of Park Ave Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, THE SPRINGS OF PARK AVE's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (55%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Springs Of Park Ave?
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 The Springs Of Park Ave Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, THE SPRINGS OF PARK AVE 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 The Springs Of Park Ave Stick Around?
THE SPRINGS OF PARK AVE has a staff turnover rate of 55%, which is 9 percentage points above the Arkansas average of 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 The Springs Of Park Ave Ever Fined?
THE SPRINGS OF PARK AVE 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 The Springs Of Park Ave on Any Federal Watch List?
THE SPRINGS OF PARK AVE 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.