THE SPRINGS OF HILLCREST
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Springs of Hillcrest has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with several concerns. Ranked #178 out of 218 facilities in Arkansas, they fall in the bottom half of the state, and they are #2 out of 2 in Nevada County, meaning there is only one other local option that is better. The facility's trend is stable, maintaining 9 reported issues from 2023 to 2024. Staffing received a 3 out of 5 rating, which is average, with a turnover rate of 46%, slightly below the state average of 50%. However, the facility has concerning fines totaling $9,537, which is higher than 76% of Arkansas facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance issues. While RN coverage is below average, with less than 20% of state facilities having more RN support, there are serious incidents reported, including a failure to supervise residents that led to a laceration for one resident, and concerns about food safety practices that could risk foodborne illness among residents. Overall, while there are some strengths in staffing stability, the facility has significant weaknesses that families should consider carefully.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Arkansas
- #178/218
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Holding Steady
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 46% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $9,537 in fines. Lower than most Arkansas facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 14 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Arkansas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 27 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
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 27 deficiencies on record
May 2024
9 deficiencies
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 observation, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect the privacy and dignity of 1 (Resident 41) sampled resident when providing wound care.
The findings includ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the care plan included oxygen therapy and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) as ordered by a physician.
The fi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a leg strap was in place to prevent trauma from an indwelling catheter for 1 (Resident #438) of 8 sampled residents...
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 observation, record review and interview, the facility to ensure the dignity and privacy of 2 (Residents #187 and #438) residents.
The findings are:
1. A review of the Medical Diagnosis indi...
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
4. Resident #38 had diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease and dementia.
a. The Quarterly MDS with an ARD of 02/28/2024 documented Resident #38 scored 09 (8-12 indicates moderate impaired cognition) on a BI...
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 facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure that staff displayed competency in caring for residents on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP), and how to use...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. On 05/21/2024 at 1:00PM, the refrigerator at Nursing Station 2, was opened and contained a locked box. The Surveyor asked Reg...
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
7. A review of the Medical Diagnosis indicated Resident #438 had diagnoses of: Urinary tract infection, Heart failure and Lymphedema (swelling in the body due to a buildup of fluid). The admission MDS...
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 reviews and interviews, the facility failed to ensure serving items were properly covered; unused food items were kept away from used food items; the kitchen was free from...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
8 deficiencies
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · 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 provide adequate supervision to prevent an altercatio...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) was completed to ensure a resident with mental health diagnoses received the n...
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 observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents seated at the same dining table received their meals at the same time to allow the residents to eat together ...
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. Resident #21 had a diagnosis of Alzheimer's Dementia, Stroke, and Ventricular Tachycardia.
a. A Physicians Order dated 06/23/23 documented, May use O2 @ 2 LPM via n/c PRN every shift .
b. The Care...
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 according to the planned written menu to meet the nutritional needs of the residents for...
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 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
Deficiency F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure food storage, preparation and service areas were free of pests. This failed practice had the potential to affect 79 res...
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 food was placed in the freezer per manufacturer instructions when received to prevent potential food borne illness for residents who r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 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 interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident #1) sampled resident was transported in the facility van to a doctor's appointment and did not cross a busy intersectio...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2022
9 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed when r...
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, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Comprehensive Care Plan addressed catheter care to ensure necessary care and services were provided to prevent the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure catheter care was ordered for a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter to ensure necessary care and services was provided to p...
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
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were accurate to facilitate the ability to plan, coordinate and provide necessary care and se...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
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 Care Plan was revised to address the care a...
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, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure smoking materials were kept at the Nurses Stati...
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 potential respiratory complications for 1 ...
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, dishes, or food items to prevent potential food borne illness failed...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure food storage, preparation and service areas were free from visible signs of rodents and pests. This failed practice had...
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.
- • 27 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • Grade D (43/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is The Springs Of Hillcrest's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns THE SPRINGS OF HILLCREST 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 Springs Of Hillcrest Staffed?
CMS rates THE SPRINGS OF HILLCREST's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 46%, compared to the Arkansas average of 46%.
What Have Inspectors Found at The Springs Of Hillcrest?
State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at THE SPRINGS OF HILLCREST during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 26 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates The Springs Of Hillcrest?
THE SPRINGS OF HILLCREST 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 SPRINGS ARKANSAS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 90 certified beds and approximately 73 residents (about 81% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in PRESCOTT, Arkansas.
How Does The Springs Of Hillcrest Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, THE SPRINGS OF HILLCREST's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (46%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Springs Of Hillcrest?
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 Springs Of Hillcrest Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, THE SPRINGS OF HILLCREST 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 Springs Of Hillcrest Stick Around?
THE SPRINGS OF HILLCREST has a staff turnover rate of 46%, 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 Springs Of Hillcrest Ever Fined?
THE SPRINGS OF HILLCREST has been fined $9,537 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Arkansas average of $33,174. 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 The Springs Of Hillcrest on Any Federal Watch List?
THE SPRINGS OF HILLCREST 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.