POCAHONTAS HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Pocahontas Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. They rank #204 out of 218 facilities in Arkansas, placing them in the bottom half, and #2 out of 2 in Randolph County, meaning only one other local option is available. While the facility is showing improvement, having reduced issues from 12 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025, there are still serious deficiencies noted in their care practices. Staffing is a relative strength, with a 4 out of 5-star rating and a turnover rate of 49%, which is below the state average, providing some stability for residents. However, the facility has been fined $14,015, higher than 81% of Arkansas facilities, and recent inspections revealed concerning incidents, such as failing to respond appropriately to a resident's unwitnessed fall and issues with food safety practices that could lead to contamination.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Arkansas
- #204/218
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 49% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $14,015 in fines. Lower than most Arkansas facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 30 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Arkansas. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 31 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Arkansas average (3.1)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
Near Arkansas avg (46%)
Higher turnover may affect care consistency
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 31 deficiencies on record
Jun 2025
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure that nursing staff responded appr...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2024
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
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to promote the dignity of a resident who was observed...
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure infection prevention and control practices were implemented to 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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interviews, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a portable oxygen cylinder was secured to prevent an accident or injury.
The finding...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 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 observation, interviews, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (...
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 interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to reflect the residents needs a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to provide an environment that promoted the maintenance or enhancement of the resident's quality of life, denying self-determination, and adequ...
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 a safe, clean, homelike environment was provid...
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 observations, record review, and interview, the facility failed to a smoking apron was utilized for 1 (Resident #20) of 1 sampled resident.
The findings are:
A review of the Order Summary re...
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, it was determined the facility failed to ensure refrigerated narcotics were stored in a permanently affixed storage box to ensure no misappropriatio...
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 observations, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure mechanical soft diets and puree diets were in the proper form for 2 of 2 observed meals provided by the facility kitc...
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 record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure infection control measures, including hand hygiene, were implemented during incontinent care for 1 (Resident #5) of ...
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 observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure cross contamination during lunch service did not occur for one of one kitchen.
The findings are:
On 08/20/2024 at 12...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0569
(Tag F0569)
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 resident funds were refunded within 30 days after the reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the walls in 2 (rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]) resident...
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Comprehensive Care Plan addressed the use of a Trilogy unit (a ventilator that provides respiratory support) for 1...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure nebulizer treatments were administered as ordered for 1 (Resident #15) of 2 (Resident #15 and #21) sampled residents. T...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure thickened water was provided at the bedside for 1 (Resident #6) of 1 sampled resident and tray cards were followed for...
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
3. On 09/11/23 at 1:26 PM, Resident #5's oxygen concentrator was set on 3 liters per minute and a Trilogy unit was at the bedside with the mask behind the unit not in sealed bag or container. Resident...
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, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food items stored in the freezer were dated to prevent potential food borne illness for residents who received meals fr...
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 observation, interview, and review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Resident Assessment Instrument Manual 3.0, the facility failed to accurately record the assessment for 1 (...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
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 F0551
(Tag F0551)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure, family or the resident's representative was notified of new skin issues and/or the Physicians Orders for treatment fo...
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 F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure body audits and wound assessments were documented accurately to meet professional nursing standards for 2 (Residents #...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2022
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0661
(Tag F0661)
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 ensure a written discharge summary was completed that included a re...
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 fingernails were trimmed and cleaned for 2 (Residents #13 and #14) of 23 (Residents #2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure water temperatures in the resident's bathroom s...
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** Based on observation, interview and record review, the Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee failed to monitor and correct ...
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 kitchen freezer, refrigerator, and dry storage area and in the snack refrigerator were labeled date...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Minor procedural issue · 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 the comprehensive person centered care plan addressed specif...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0577
(Tag F0577)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview, observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents, resident representatives/family, and visitors had the right to examine the results of the most recent survey...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all 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 for...
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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • 31 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $14,015 in fines. Above average for Arkansas. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade F (33/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Pocahontas Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns POCAHONTAS HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Pocahontas Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Staffed?
CMS rates POCAHONTAS HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 49%, compared to the Arkansas average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at Pocahontas Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center?
State health inspectors documented 31 deficiencies at POCAHONTAS HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 26 with potential for harm, and 4 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Pocahontas Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center?
POCAHONTAS HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION 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 SOUTHERN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 97 certified beds and approximately 52 residents (about 54% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in POCAHONTAS, Arkansas.
How Does Pocahontas Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, POCAHONTAS HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (49%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Pocahontas Healthcare And Rehabilitation 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 Pocahontas Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, POCAHONTAS HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION 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 1-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 Pocahontas Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?
POCAHONTAS HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 49%, 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 Pocahontas Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?
POCAHONTAS HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER has been fined $14,015 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Arkansas average of $33,219. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Pocahontas Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?
POCAHONTAS HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION 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.