THE GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF SOUTHERN HILLS
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Green House Cottages of Southern Hills received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's operations and care quality. It ranks #173 out of 218 nursing homes in Arkansas, placing it in the bottom half of the state, but it is the only option in Cleveland County. The facility is showing some improvement, with a reduction in issues from 10 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a 5/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 34%, which is much lower than the state average. However, the facility has accumulated $47,814 in fines, which is concerning and suggests ongoing compliance problems. There have been critical incidents, including a failure to properly supervise residents who smoke, leading to potential burn risks, and a lack of required safety measures for a resident at high risk of falls. Additionally, another incident highlighted that a resident with severe cognitive impairment was not adequately monitored, resulting in elopement risks. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing, the facility faces serious issues that families should consider carefully.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Arkansas
- #173/218
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 34% turnover. Near Arkansas's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $47,814 in fines. Higher than 63% of Arkansas facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 31 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Arkansas. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent 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 (34%)
14 points below Arkansas average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Arkansas average (3.1)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
12pts below Arkansas avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
Aug 2025
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
Number of residents sampled:
Number of residents cited:
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident’s wheelchair was properly secured to ensure the resident w...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
10 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4). Resident #20 had diagnoses of dementia, psychotic disturbance, anxiety, and delirium.
Fall Assessments dated 03/29/2024, 3/...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were not self-administered without a physician's order, and the interdisciplinary team (IDT) assessed resid...
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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident restrooms were cleaned to promote a clean and sanitary environment for 1 (Resident #43) of 1 sampled resident ...
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received proper and punctual incontinence care for 1 (Resident #25) sampled resident.
The findings are:
Resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services for residents receiving enteral nutrition via Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a pharmacist's recommendation for the provider to provide an appropriate diagnosis before administering an antipsychotic medication ...
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were not left at the bedside for 2 (Residents #7 and #29) sampled residents.
The findings are:
1. Residen...
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff used proper hand hygiene while passing medication and providing perineal care for 2 (Resident #16 and #25) sample...
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 (1) food preparation equipment was free of peeling and chipped paint to prevent potential food borne illness for reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
1 deficiency
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · 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 safety and supervision to prevent elopement fr...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2023
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who experienced a significant change in status had a comprehensive assessment completed within 14 days of the facilit...
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 provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards to prevent the worsening of a skin condition for 1 (Resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide service to maintain appropriate sleep hygiene for 2 (Residents #11 and #67) sampled residents who use Continuous Posi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2022
5 deficiencies
1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL
(K)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · 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 planned level of supervision was prov...
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 fingernails were clean and trimmed to promote good personal hygiene and grooming for 1 (Resident #18) of 33 (Residents ...
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 observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure pureed food was prepared with broth, milk, or another nutritive liquid rather than water, to prevent potential dilution...
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 #39 had diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and Acute Ischemic Heart Disease. The Annual MDS with an ARD of 10/23/21 documented the resident scored 12 (8-12 indicates...
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 expired food items were promptly removed from stock; food items stored in the refrigerator, freezer, and storage areas ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 34% turnover. Below Arkansas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s), $47,814 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 20 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $47,814 in fines. Higher than 94% of Arkansas facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade F (14/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is The Green House Cottages Of Southern Hills's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns THE GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF SOUTHERN HILLS 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 Green House Cottages Of Southern Hills Staffed?
CMS rates THE GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF SOUTHERN HILLS's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 34%, 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 Southern Hills?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at THE GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF SOUTHERN HILLS during 2022 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 17 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates The Green House Cottages Of Southern Hills?
THE GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF SOUTHERN HILLS 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 106 certified beds and approximately 81 residents (about 76% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in RISON, Arkansas.
How Does The Green House Cottages Of Southern Hills Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, THE GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF SOUTHERN HILLS's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (34%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Green House Cottages Of Southern Hills?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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 Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is The Green House Cottages Of Southern Hills Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, THE GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF SOUTHERN HILLS has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Arkansas. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at The Green House Cottages Of Southern Hills Stick Around?
THE GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF SOUTHERN HILLS has a staff turnover rate of 34%, 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 Southern Hills Ever Fined?
THE GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF SOUTHERN HILLS has been fined $47,814 across 2 penalty actions. The Arkansas average is $33,557. 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 Green House Cottages Of Southern Hills on Any Federal Watch List?
THE GREEN HOUSE COTTAGES OF SOUTHERN HILLS 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.