THE LAKES AT MAUMELLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Lakes at Maumelle Health and Rehabilitation has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average quality with some significant concerns. Ranked #174 out of 218 facilities in Arkansas, they are in the bottom half, and #17 out of 23 in Pulaski County, meaning only a few local options are better. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 10 in 2023 to 11 in 2024. Staffing is average, rated 3 out of 5 stars, but with a concerning turnover rate of 71%, significantly higher than the state average of 50%. While there are no fines on record, which is good, it's worth noting that RN coverage is better than 85% of Arkansas facilities, ensuring more oversight of resident care. However, there are several serious concerns regarding food safety practices. For instance, inspectors found that the kitchen staff failed to ensure dishes were properly sanitized, with temperatures not documented as required. Additionally, food items were not stored correctly, with expired items left in the refrigerator, and staff did not consistently wash their hands before handling food. These issues pose a potential risk for foodborne illnesses among residents, emphasizing the need for improvements in kitchen hygiene and safety protocols.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Arkansas
- #174/218
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 71% turnover. Very high, 23 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Arkansas facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 33 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Arkansas. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 34 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Arkansas average (3.1)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
25pts above Arkansas avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
23 points above Arkansas average of 48%
The Ugly 34 deficiencies on record
Jun 2024
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on the observations, interviews, and facility policy review the facility failed to ensure 1 sampled (Resident #20) did not self-administer medication prior to an assessment conducted by the inte...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and facility policy reviews the facility failed to protect the Patient Health Information (PHI) of 1 (Resident #2) sampled resident. This failed practice had the pot...
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 complete an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 01 (Resident #40) of 1 sample mix residents. The findings are:
Resident #40's Quarterly MD...
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
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to provide palatable food to Residents. The findings are:
Resident #4 has a medical diagnosis of: Encepha...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review it was determined the facility failed to ensure staff washed/cleaned hands after changing gloves during incontinent and wound...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure kitchen equipment was in safe, working condition.
The findings are:
1. On 6/02/24 at 11:07 AM, the surveyor en...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure residents rooms are sanitary, clean, and homelike for Resident #4 and the heating and air conditioni...
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
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was individualized to addressed appropriate care and services for use of fall mats for 2 (Resident #26, ...
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, and interview the facility failed to ensure residents that require fall mats at the bedside have them placed in a manor to prevent injury in event of a fall for 1 ...
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 F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews, and facility policy reviews the facility failed to store drugs and biologicals in accordance with professional principles and the facility's policy. This 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 it was determined that the facility failed to ensure dishes were properly sanitized.
The findings are:
1. On 6/03/2024 at 11:06 AM the surveyor ask...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff members (Floor Nurse, Certified Nursing Assistant and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 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
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 to ensure that a humidification bottle was present to hum...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
6 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
Deficiency F0806
(Tag F0806)
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 resident food preferences were communicated to...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
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 residents with consents for the Pneumococcal vaccine receive...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide bathing assistance for 3 (Residents #1, #13, #...
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 residents environment was free of potential accident/hazards for 27 residents who are ambulatory and who reside in the facility ac...
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 per physicians' orders for 1 (Resident #259) of 5 (Resident # 1, #17, #19, #49, & #259) sampled...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
FACILITY
Kitchen
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food items stored in the refrigerators, freezers, and dry storage were sealed or closed, and labeled ...
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 F0602
(Tag F0602)
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 residents medications were not misappropriated for 3 (R...
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
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 oral care was performed on 1 (Resident #2) of 2 (Residents #1 and #2) sampled residents who were dependent on staff fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2022
13 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a copy of the Advance Directive and/or Living Will was located within the resident's medical record for 2 (Residents #20 and #55) of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed to address the necessary monitoring and precautions related to the use of an antianxiety med...
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
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure call lights were answered in a timely manner to accommodate a resident's need for assistance for 1 (Resident #11) and f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
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 the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were com...
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure baths / showers were regularly and consistently provided to maintain good personal hygiene and prevent odors for 1 (Resident #7) of ...
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
2. Resident #18 had diagnoses of Shortness of Breath and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. The Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 2/3/22 documented the resident scored 15 (13-15 indicates cognitively i...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
2. Resident #51 had diagnoses of Alzheimer's and Dementia. The Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 03/16/22 documented the resident scored 5 (0-7 indicates severely cognitively impaired) on a BIMS and was to...
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
2. Resident #3 had diagnoses of Congestive Heart Failure, and Dyspnea. The Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 01/04/22 documented the resident scored 15 (13-15 indicates cognitively intact) on a BIMS and di...
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an anti-anxiety medication ordered PRN (as needed) was discontinued in the absence of a physician' documented evaluation every 14 da...
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 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 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 maintained appearance to preserve palatability and encourage adequate nutritional int...
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 Residents, Resident Representatives and Families were notified by 5:00 PM the next calendar day following the occurrence of conf...
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 dietary staff washed their hands before handling clean equipment or food items to prevent potential food borne illness for residents w...
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.
- • 34 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • Grade D (40/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 71% turnover. Very high, 23 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
About This Facility
What is The Lakes At Maumelle's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns THE LAKES AT MAUMELLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 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 Lakes At Maumelle Staffed?
CMS rates THE LAKES AT MAUMELLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 71%, which is 25 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 80%, 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 Lakes At Maumelle?
State health inspectors documented 34 deficiencies at THE LAKES AT MAUMELLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION during 2022 to 2024. These included: 34 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates The Lakes At Maumelle?
THE LAKES AT MAUMELLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 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 48 certified beds and approximately 51 residents (about 106% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MAUMELLE, Arkansas.
How Does The Lakes At Maumelle Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, THE LAKES AT MAUMELLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (71%) 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 Lakes At Maumelle?
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 Lakes At Maumelle Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, THE LAKES AT MAUMELLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 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 Lakes At Maumelle Stick Around?
Staff turnover at THE LAKES AT MAUMELLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION is high. At 71%, the facility is 25 percentage points above the Arkansas average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 80%. 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 Lakes At Maumelle Ever Fined?
THE LAKES AT MAUMELLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 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 Lakes At Maumelle on Any Federal Watch List?
THE LAKES AT MAUMELLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION 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.