THE GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF HOMEWOOD
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Green House Cottages of Homewood has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families researching nursing homes. It ranks #87 out of 218 facilities in Arkansas, placing it in the top half, and #1 in Polk County, meaning there are no better local options. The facility is improving, having reduced issues from 14 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025. Staffing is also a strength, with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 31%, significantly lower than the state average of 50%. While there are no fines on record, which is reassuring, some areas need attention. Recent inspections found that residents were not receiving regular fingernail care and shaving, and there were issues with food storage dates in the freezer, which could lead to safety concerns. Additionally, one resident was receiving oxygen without a physician's order, highlighting potential gaps in care management. Overall, while The Green House Cottages has many strengths, families should be aware of these weaknesses when considering this facility.
- Trust Score
- B
- In Arkansas
- #87/218
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 31% 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 ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 23 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Arkansas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (31%)
17 points below Arkansas average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
15pts below Arkansas avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
Feb 2025
1 deficiency
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 follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) during intravenous catheter care for 1 (R...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
14 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were fed in a manner at meal service to promote dignity for 2 (Residents #283 and #71) of 1 sampled resident. The findings a...
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to implement a procedure to monitor declines in activities of daily living (ADL) of residents to ensure accuracy of resident assessments. This...
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 shaving for 1 (Resident #32) ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the care plan was revised to reflect the resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that record of receipt of stock Ativan oral concentration was accurately documented in sufficient detail to ensure acc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that stock medications for the EKIT (Emergency Medication Kit) were documented and labeled with the correct concentrat...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident 71) received a meal that was palatable, attractive, and at an appetizing temperature as determined by t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0887
(Tag F0887)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to obtain a declination form for the COVID-19 Vaccine with Education for 1 (Resident #30) of 3 sampled residents. The findings are:
a. On 01/2...
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 fingernail care and shaving was regularly provided for 4 (Residents #32, #51, #57 and #60) of 4 sampled residents who r...
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 a resident had physicians order for oxygen for 1 (Resident #41) of 3 (Residents #41, #10 and #39) Residents who received...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure licensed staff had been trained properly to take care of a resident with an enteral feeding tube. The findings are:
1. ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0808
(Tag F0808)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure a therapeutic diet was prescribed by the attending physician for 1 (Resident #283) for a pureed diet. The findings are:
1. On 1/30/24 a...
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
(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** 4. Cottage 5:
a. On 01/31/24 at 07:21 AM, in the freezer there was an opened container of strawberry ice cream, and goat cheese ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
5 deficiencies
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 review and revise the Care Plan to meet the needs for 1 (Resident #50) of 1 Resident sampled whose Care Plans were reviewed.
...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 a female resident's facial hair was trimmed or shaved to promote good personal hygiene and grooming for 1 (Residents #...
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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident wishes/documentation for Cardiopulmon...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
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, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that necessary services were provided to promote function and prevent the decline in Range of Motion (ROM) for 1 (R #55)...
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 infection control measures were consistently implemented to reduce the potential for the spread of disease and infecti...
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.
- • 31% turnover. Below Arkansas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is The Green House Cottages Of Homewood's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns THE GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF HOMEWOOD an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 The Green House Cottages Of Homewood Staffed?
CMS rates THE GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF HOMEWOOD's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 31%, compared to the Arkansas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at The Green House Cottages Of Homewood?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at THE GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF HOMEWOOD during 2022 to 2025. These included: 20 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates The Green House Cottages Of Homewood?
THE GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF HOMEWOOD 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 138 certified beds and approximately 92 residents (about 67% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in MENA, Arkansas.
How Does The Green House Cottages Of Homewood Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, THE GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF HOMEWOOD's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (31%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Green House Cottages Of Homewood?
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 The Green House Cottages Of Homewood Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, THE GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF HOMEWOOD 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 4-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 The Green House Cottages Of Homewood Stick Around?
THE GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF HOMEWOOD has a staff turnover rate of 31%, 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 The Green House Cottages Of Homewood Ever Fined?
THE GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF HOMEWOOD 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 Green House Cottages Of Homewood on Any Federal Watch List?
THE GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF HOMEWOOD 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.