THE BLOSSOMS AT OAKDALE REHAB & NURSING CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Blossoms at Oakdale Rehab & Nursing Center has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and falls in the middle of the pack among nursing homes. It ranks #169 of 218 facilities in Arkansas, placing it in the bottom half, and is #4 out of 4 in White County, indicating only one local option is better. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 5 in 2024 to 11 in 2025. Staffing is a concern, rated at 2 out of 5 stars, and while there are no fines recorded, the RN coverage is lower than 90% of facilities in the state, which could impact resident care. Recent inspections revealed several food safety issues, including improperly stored food that could lead to contamination, and a failure to ensure residents had their advance directives properly addressed, suggesting that while there are some efforts to provide care, significant weaknesses remain.
- Trust Score
- C
- In Arkansas
- #169/218
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- 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 10 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Arkansas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 27 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
Below Arkansas average (3.1)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
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 27 deficiencies on record
Jan 2025
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's discharge/transfer information was sent in a timely manner to the Office of the Ombudsman, affecting 1 (Resident 28) of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0625
(Tag F0625)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident or their representative ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the state designated authority was informed when 1 (Resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a physician order was followed for a dose reduction for 1 (Resident #43) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
The f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0919
(Tag F0919)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident had a functional call light, and that call light was kept in reach to prevent accidents and injuries for 1 ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident's Advance Directive was signed by resident or resi...
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
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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the environment was clean and hazard free...
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 residents who required assistance with activities of daily living were regularly provided with the necessary assistanc...
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, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure 1 of 1 sampled (Resident 47) resident was transferred from the chair to bed appropriately with...
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
**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 →
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 review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that food was dated properly, food was sealed properly, drip pans under the stove top were cleaned, and that cross con...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents who required assistance with activities of daily living were regularly provided with the necessary assistanc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceuticals to meet the needs for 1 (Resident #27) of 1 sampled resident. The findings are:
Resident #27 had diag...
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 foods were processed to the correct consistency to meet the needs of 4 residents who had physician's order for a pureed diet ac...
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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff followed contact precautions including the appropriate use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and Hand Hygie...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure oxygen cylinders were secured to prevent possible injury or explosion as evidenced by two oxygen cylinders observed in ...
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
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure oxygen orders were obtained prior to administering oxygen therapy to 1 (Resident #3) of 3 case mix residents. The findi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Requirements
(Tag F0622)
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 document an acute decline in the resident's condition prior to tran...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) were completed accurately as related to a contracture and functional status for 1 (Resident #4) of 6 (Res...
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
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the care plan was revised to identify the discontinuation of oxygen therapy for 1 (Resident #68) of 38 (Residents #2, #3...
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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
4. Resident #347 had diagnoses of Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following Cerebral Infarction Affecting Left Non-dominant Side and Non-Alzheimer Dementia. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Ass...
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
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 necessary care and services were provided for ...
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 oxygen tubing was properly labeled and stored to prevent the potential of cross contamination and infection for 2 (Res...
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
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the physician was immediately consulted regarding a change of condition that required a physician's intervention to prevent a potent...
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
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure meals were served at temperatures that were acceptable to the residents, to improve palatability and encourage good nu...
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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure foods stored in the freezer, the refrigerator ...
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.
- • 27 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • Grade C (50/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is The Blossoms At Oakdale Rehab & Nursing Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns THE BLOSSOMS AT OAKDALE REHAB & NURSING CENTER 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 The Blossoms At Oakdale Rehab & Nursing Center Staffed?
CMS rates THE BLOSSOMS AT OAKDALE REHAB & NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 55%, compared to the Arkansas average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at The Blossoms At Oakdale Rehab & Nursing Center?
State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at THE BLOSSOMS AT OAKDALE REHAB & NURSING CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 27 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates The Blossoms At Oakdale Rehab & Nursing Center?
THE BLOSSOMS AT OAKDALE REHAB & NURSING CENTER 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 BLOSSOMS NURSING AND REHAB CENTER, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 154 certified beds and approximately 98 residents (about 64% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in JUDSONIA, Arkansas.
How Does The Blossoms At Oakdale Rehab & Nursing Center Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, THE BLOSSOMS AT OAKDALE REHAB & NURSING CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (55%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Blossoms At Oakdale Rehab & Nursing Center?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.
Is The Blossoms At Oakdale Rehab & Nursing Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, THE BLOSSOMS AT OAKDALE REHAB & NURSING CENTER 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 2-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 The Blossoms At Oakdale Rehab & Nursing Center Stick Around?
THE BLOSSOMS AT OAKDALE REHAB & NURSING CENTER 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 Blossoms At Oakdale Rehab & Nursing Center Ever Fined?
THE BLOSSOMS AT OAKDALE REHAB & NURSING CENTER 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 Blossoms At Oakdale Rehab & Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?
THE BLOSSOMS AT OAKDALE REHAB & NURSING CENTER 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.