ST ELIZABETH'S PLACE
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
St. Elizabeth's Place in Jonesboro, Arkansas has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average care with some concerns. They rank #122 out of 218 facilities in the state, placing them in the bottom half, and #3 of 6 in Craighead County, meaning only two local options are better. While the facility is improving overall, having reduced issues from 12 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025, staffing is a weakness with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 68%, significantly above the state average of 50%. The facility has faced some serious incidents, including a failure to provide adequate assistance for a resident who needed help transferring, which could increase fall risk, and issues with food safety practices that could affect the health of nearly 90 residents. Despite these concerns, the health inspection score is 4 out of 5, suggesting some areas of strength in care.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Arkansas
- #122/218
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 68% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $7,443 in fines. Higher than 65% of Arkansas facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 17 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Arkansas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 25 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
21pts 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
20 points above Arkansas average of 48%
The Ugly 25 deficiencies on record
May 2025
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, interviews, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensur...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
12 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0561
(Tag F0561)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assure that 1 (Resident #56) of 1 sampled got to go to their smoke breaks. The findings are:
On 3/04/24 at 1:47 pm, Resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure fingernails were regularly trimmed and cleaned to promote good personal hygiene and grooming. This failed practice had...
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that 1 (Resident #32) of 1 sampled resident received a thorough head to toe skin assessment. This had the ability to a...
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 catheter securement devices were utilized for 1 (Resident #69) of 3 sampled residents (#27, #69, #82) who had an indwe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Deficiency Text Not Available
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #387 had diagnoses of Type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications, Other atherosclerosis of native arteries of ex...
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
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure residents meals were removed from the serving trays in the dining room to de-emphasize the institutional character of the setting to pr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
2. On 3/4/24 at 2:14 pm, Resident #82 stated a medication was needed, and the call light had been pushed. The Surveyor stayed in the room with resident for some time before leaving and approaching the...
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 a smooth lump-free consistency to minimize the risk of choking or other complications for residents ...
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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure that staff were wearing PPE (Personal Protection Equipment) correctly in the facility when residents had been diagnosed with Covid-19....
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0947
(Tag F0947)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Dementia in-service training was provided in the past year. The findings are:
On 03/07/24 at 11:20 AM, The Surveyor reviewed in-serv...
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, and record review, the facility to ensure food preparation equipment was free of debris to prevent potential for cross contamination; spices stored in the cabinet or o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to preform nail care on two (Resident #2 and #3) of six ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
2 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, witness statements, and interviews the facility failed to provide adequate assistance with transfers for...
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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
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 staff followed the care plan for resident transfer for 1 (Re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the call light was accessible to allow residents to summon for assistance to accommodate their individual needs for 1 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure information regarding a residents' code status...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure an injury of unknown source was re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident who requi...
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, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure, skin audits were completed weekly for 1 (Resident #55) of 1 sampled residents whose records were reviewed for skin aud...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents were n...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, record reviews, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure its medication error rate was not 5% or greater. There were 2 errors out of 31 opportunitie...
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** A review of a facility policy titled, Oxygen Administration, revised 10/2010, revealed in preparation for the administration of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0885
(Tag F0885)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Resident, Resident Representatives and Families were notified by 5:00 PM the next calendar day following the occurrence/s of a c...
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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • 25 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade D (48/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 68% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is St Elizabeth'S Place's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ST ELIZABETH'S PLACE 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 St Elizabeth'S Place Staffed?
CMS rates ST ELIZABETH'S PLACE's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 68%, which is 21 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 73%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at St Elizabeth'S Place?
State health inspectors documented 25 deficiencies at ST ELIZABETH'S PLACE during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 24 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates St Elizabeth'S Place?
ST ELIZABETH'S PLACE 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 110 certified beds and approximately 77 residents (about 70% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in JONESBORO, Arkansas.
How Does St Elizabeth'S Place Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, ST ELIZABETH'S PLACE's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (68%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting St Elizabeth'S Place?
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 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?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is St Elizabeth'S Place Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ST ELIZABETH'S PLACE 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 St Elizabeth'S Place Stick Around?
Staff turnover at ST ELIZABETH'S PLACE is high. At 68%, the facility is 21 percentage points above the Arkansas average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 73%. 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 St Elizabeth'S Place Ever Fined?
ST ELIZABETH'S PLACE has been fined $7,443 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Arkansas average of $33,153. 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 St Elizabeth'S Place on Any Federal Watch List?
ST ELIZABETH'S PLACE 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.