THE BLOSSOMS AT MIDTOWN REHAB & NURSING CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Blossoms at Midtown Rehab & Nursing Center has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average quality and some concerns about care. They rank #168 of 218 facilities in Arkansas, placing them in the bottom half, and #15 of 23 in Pulaski County, meaning there are only a few local options that are better. The facility is improving, having reduced issues from 11 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025. Staffing is average with a 3/5 rating, but the turnover rate is concerning at 64%, higher than the state average of 50%. While they have good RN coverage, being better than 89% of Arkansas facilities, there have been incidents where dietary staff failed to wash their hands before handling food, risking foodborne illness, and issues with room maintenance and cleanliness that could affect residents' comfort. Overall, while there are strengths like the RN coverage, the high turnover and past food safety concerns are significant weaknesses to consider.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Arkansas
- #168/218
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 64% 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 35 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Arkansas. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 29 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
18pts above Arkansas avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
16 points above Arkansas average of 48%
The Ugly 29 deficiencies on record
Feb 2025
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 interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure medications were...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
2 deficiencies
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 F0602
(Tag F0602)
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 ensure residents were free from misappropriation of pro...
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
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 ensure allegations of misappropriation of property were...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
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 complete a discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment to accuratel...
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, interview, and record review the facility failed to review and revise the care plan to include oxygen therapy was in use to ensure appropriate coordination of care for 1 (Residen...
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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident #199) received wound care as ordered by the physician to prevent wound infection and healing. This failed practice had t...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure potentially hazardous items were stored in a secured manner fo...
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, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was administered at the flow rate ordered by the physician to prevent respiratory complications for 2 (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
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure meals were prepared and served according to the planned written menu to meet the nutritional needs of the residents fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
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 vegetables were not overcooked and were served in a method that maintained the appearance of food product and hot food ...
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, interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed Enhanced Barrier Precautions (E...
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 to ensure foods stored in the refrigerator, freezer and storage room were covered, and sealed to maintain freshness and decrease the pot...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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 F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms were maintained in good repai...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interview, the facility failed to clean the tube feeding pumps, poles, fall mat and floors for rooms #...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that devices were put in place in the hands to prevent further contracture and/or decline in Range of Motion (ROM), fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that meals were prepared and served according to the planned written menu to meet the nutritional needs of the residen...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary dru...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication was secured by leaving it on a bedside table in a resident's room, for 1 (Resident #22) sampled resident. T...
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)
📢 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 F0809
(Tag F0809)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the residents' meals were consistently being served at regularly scheduled times, and failed to provide the residents ...
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 the dietary staff washed their hands and chang...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2022
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
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 ensure a physician's order for oxygen was obtained to pr...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Transfer Notice
(Tag F0623)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
4. Resident #294 had diagnoses of Essential Hypertension, Acute Cerebrovascular Insufficiency, Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region, and Functional Quadriplegia. The Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 12/9/21 do...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #29 with a diagnosis of Cerebral Infarction Due to Embolism of Unspecified Posterior Cerebral Artery, Hemiplegia, an...
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
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure over the counter medications/items, prescription drugs and outdated medications were stored in accordance with state law and accepted...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure meals were prepared and served in accordance with the planned written menu and quantified recipes were consistently util...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
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 food was prepared by methods that conserves nutritive value, flavor and appearance; to maintain palatability, attractiv...
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, record review, 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 complicatio...
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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure leftover food items were used by its use-by date to retain food quality; foods stored in the freezer and refrigerator were covered, se...
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.
- • 29 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • Grade D (45/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 64% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is The Blossoms At Midtown Rehab & Nursing Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns THE BLOSSOMS AT MIDTOWN 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 Midtown Rehab & Nursing Center Staffed?
CMS rates THE BLOSSOMS AT MIDTOWN REHAB & NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 64%, which is 18 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 69%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at The Blossoms At Midtown Rehab & Nursing Center?
State health inspectors documented 29 deficiencies at THE BLOSSOMS AT MIDTOWN REHAB & NURSING CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 29 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates The Blossoms At Midtown Rehab & Nursing Center?
THE BLOSSOMS AT MIDTOWN 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 85 residents (about 55% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas.
How Does The Blossoms At Midtown Rehab & Nursing Center Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, THE BLOSSOMS AT MIDTOWN REHAB & NURSING CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (64%) 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 The Blossoms At Midtown Rehab & Nursing Center?
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 The Blossoms At Midtown Rehab & Nursing Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, THE BLOSSOMS AT MIDTOWN 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 Midtown Rehab & Nursing Center Stick Around?
Staff turnover at THE BLOSSOMS AT MIDTOWN REHAB & NURSING CENTER is high. At 64%, the facility is 18 percentage points above the Arkansas average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 69%. 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 The Blossoms At Midtown Rehab & Nursing Center Ever Fined?
THE BLOSSOMS AT MIDTOWN 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 Midtown Rehab & Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?
THE BLOSSOMS AT MIDTOWN 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.