PLEASANT VALLEY REHABILITATION AND NURSING
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Pleasant Valley Rehabilitation and Nursing has received a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families considering care options. It ranks #29 out of 218 facilities in Arkansas, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 23 in Pulaski County, meaning only one local facility is rated higher. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 8 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025. Staffing is rated 4 out of 5 stars, which is solid, although the turnover rate of 58% is around the state average, suggesting some staff consistency but room for improvement. Families should note that while there have been no fines recorded, there were recent concerns regarding food safety practices, such as expired food not being promptly discarded and cleanliness issues in the kitchen that could affect residents.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Arkansas
- #29/218
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 58% 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 ○ Average
- Each resident gets 31 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Arkansas. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
12pts above Arkansas avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
10 points above Arkansas average of 48%
The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation of medication administration, interview, record review and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure an insulin pen was primed and the plunger was held down for a co...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure a vial of long-acting insulin was properly labeled with an open...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0577
(Tag F0577)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the state survey results were posted in a place readily accessible to residents. The findings are:
On 2/06/24 at 3:02 PM...
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 a homelike environment for 1 (room [ROOM NUMBER]) room on the 2...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident #35) of 5 (Residents #13, #21, #35, #42, #66) sample mix residents that were reviewed for unnecessary medications receive...
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 that pureed food items were blended to a smooth, lump free consistency to minimize the risk of choking or other complications for thos...
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 interview the facility failed to ensure isolation laundry was handled correctly to prevent the spread of infection. This failed practice had the potential to affect 15 (Resident's #1, #6, #7,...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
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 a safe environment for 1 (room [ROOM NUMBER]) room on the 200 H...
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** F0812 F
Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to ensure deep fryer was free of debris to prevent potential cr...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an injury of unknown source/origin was reported to the Office of Long-Term Care (OLTC) and other agencies in accordance with state a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
3 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
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the drainage bag of an indwelling catheter was...
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 F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure it was free of any significant medication erro...
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection prevention and control practices were implemented to prevent the development of communicable diseases and in...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
1 deficiency
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 F0725
(Tag F0725)
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 maintain sufficient staffing to ensure provision of t...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 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
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the confidentiality of resident's records when they sent another resident medication card containing personal identifiable informat...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
1 deficiency
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure weekly skin audits were reported to ensure the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
1 deficiency
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
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 1(Resident #2) of 3 (Residents #1, R #2, R #3) sampled residents always had water available. The facility failed to ens...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure pneumococcal immunizations were administered to eligible residents and immunization records were tracked and documented completely f...
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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident's environment was free from accident hazards for 2 (Resident #19 and Resident #80) of the 7 sample residents (R #6, R #10...
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 foods stored in the freezer, refrigerator and dry storage area were covered and dated to minimize the potential for fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident #55) of 1 sampled resident had a ventilator as documented on the resident Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessments. The findin...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to include the recommendations from the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) determination and evaluation report into the Care ...
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
- • 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.
- • 22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • 58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is Pleasant Valley Rehabilitation And Nursing's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns PLEASANT VALLEY REHABILITATION AND NURSING an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Pleasant Valley Rehabilitation And Nursing Staffed?
CMS rates PLEASANT VALLEY REHABILITATION AND NURSING's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 58%, which is 12 percentage points above the Arkansas average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Pleasant Valley Rehabilitation And Nursing?
State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at PLEASANT VALLEY REHABILITATION AND NURSING during 2022 to 2025. These included: 20 with potential for harm and 2 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Pleasant Valley Rehabilitation And Nursing?
PLEASANT VALLEY REHABILITATION AND NURSING 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 SOUTHERN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 97 certified beds and approximately 73 residents (about 75% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas.
How Does Pleasant Valley Rehabilitation And Nursing Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, PLEASANT VALLEY REHABILITATION AND NURSING's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (58%) 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 Pleasant Valley Rehabilitation And Nursing?
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 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 facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Pleasant Valley Rehabilitation And Nursing Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, PLEASANT VALLEY REHABILITATION AND NURSING 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 5-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 Pleasant Valley Rehabilitation And Nursing Stick Around?
Staff turnover at PLEASANT VALLEY REHABILITATION AND NURSING is high. At 58%, the facility is 12 percentage points above the Arkansas average of 46%. 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 Pleasant Valley Rehabilitation And Nursing Ever Fined?
PLEASANT VALLEY REHABILITATION AND NURSING 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 Pleasant Valley Rehabilitation And Nursing on Any Federal Watch List?
PLEASANT VALLEY REHABILITATION AND NURSING 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.