MANILA HEALTHCARE CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Manila Healthcare Center has a Trust Grade of B+, which indicates it is above average and recommended for families considering options. It ranks #24 out of 218 facilities in Arkansas, placing it in the top half, and #2 out of 4 in Mississippi County, meaning there is only one other local option that ranks higher. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 3 in 2024 to 2 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, earning 5 out of 5 stars with a turnover rate of 39%, significantly lower than the state average, suggesting that staff members are experienced and familiar with residents' needs. Notably, there have been no fines, and the center has more RN coverage than 96% of Arkansas facilities, ensuring quality oversight. However, there are some weaknesses. The facility has had specific concerns, such as dietary staff failing to wash their hands before handling food, which could risk residents' health. Additionally, there were lapses in notifying families about residents testing positive for COVID-19, which raises concerns about communication during critical situations. Lastly, cleanliness issues were noted, particularly in the secured unit, indicating that the environment may not always meet the expected standards. Overall, while there are significant strengths at Manila Healthcare Center, prospective residents' families should weigh these against the identified concerns.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In Arkansas
- #24/218
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 39% turnover. Near Arkansas's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Arkansas facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 45 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Arkansas. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (39%)
9 points below Arkansas average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Near Arkansas avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record
Jan 2025
2 deficiencies
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 record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure infection control measures, including the storage of resident equipment, were implemented during residents smoking f...
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, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the environment was clean and sanitary t...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
3 deficiencies
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure maintenance was in place to maintain and preven...
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
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were given within a timely manner to avoid adverse effects on resident's condition and ensure that medicati...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Surveyor: Young, [NAME]
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Quality Assurance and Performanc...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff did not leave medications unattended on a secured unit. The findings are:
During observation on 10/4/23 at 11:16...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 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 F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility to ensure food was prepared by methods that maintained the flavor and encourage good nutritional intake for the residents who received ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
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 Physician's orders for wound care treatment wer...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2022
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that the use of Bi-pap (Bilateral Positive Airway Pressure) was documented on the Comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS)...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that an oral medication for pain was administered, to prevent pain for 1 resident (Resident #4) of 8 sampled residents (R#4, R#11, R...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
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)
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 all areas of the building were in good repair f...
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
Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to inform the residents and/or their representatives of a change in the COVID-19 status of the building by 5:00 PM on the next ca...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
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 use of a Bi-pap was documented on the...
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** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a Bi-Pap mask was appropriately stored to ...
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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored and labeled properly and safely in 1 sampled resident's room (Resident #308). This failed prac...
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
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to maintain a shower chair and resident bed pans in a manner as to provide a sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents. The failed prac...
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 dietary staff washed their hands before handling clean equipment. This failed practice had the potential to affect res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0885
(Tag F0885)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to inform the residents and/or their representatives of a change in the COVID-19 status of the building by 5:00 PM on the next calendar day aft...
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
- • Grade B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Arkansas.
- • 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.
- • 39% turnover. Below Arkansas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Manila Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MANILA HEALTHCARE CENTER 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 Manila Healthcare Center Staffed?
CMS rates MANILA HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 39%, compared to the Arkansas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Manila Healthcare Center?
State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at MANILA HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 19 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Manila Healthcare Center?
MANILA HEALTHCARE 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 DAVID VANN & BOYD WRIGHT, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 70 certified beds and approximately 57 residents (about 81% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MANILA, Arkansas.
How Does Manila Healthcare Center Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, MANILA HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Manila Healthcare Center?
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 Manila Healthcare Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MANILA HEALTHCARE 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 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 Manila Healthcare Center Stick Around?
MANILA HEALTHCARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 39%, which is about average for Arkansas nursing homes (state average: 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 Manila Healthcare Center Ever Fined?
MANILA HEALTHCARE 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 Manila Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?
MANILA HEALTHCARE 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.