THE COTTAGES AT TEXARKANA
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Cottages at Texarkana has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is decent and slightly above average among nursing homes. It ranks #85 out of 218 facilities in Arkansas, placing it in the top half, and is the top choice among three options in Miller County. However, the facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 5 in 2024 to 8 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point with a 5-star rating and a turnover rate of 44%, which is better than the state average, indicating that staff members tend to stay longer and build relationships with residents. On the downside, the facility has incurred $43,110 in fines, which is concerning and suggests ongoing compliance issues, and there have been serious incidents, such as a resident sustaining a fracture after a fall that was not reported in a timely manner, along with several concerns regarding food safety practices.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Arkansas
- #85/218
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 44% turnover. Near Arkansas's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $43,110 in fines. Lower than most Arkansas facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 38 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 (44%)
4 points below Arkansas average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near 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
Mar 2025
5 deficiencies
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
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 ensure a resident received an evaluation and treatmen...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed accurately...
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 observations, record review, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) and performed appropriate hand hygiene to prevent the...
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, interview, and review of the menu, the facility failed to ensure meals were prepared and served according to the planned written menu to meet the nutritional needs...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure foods stored in the freezer, refrigerator and dry storage area were covered; refrigerated food...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2025
3 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
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 a resident was transferred in a safe manner to prevent injury for one (Resident #1) of two (Resident #1 and Resident #...
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 F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure ongoing staff training, competencies, and evaluations for all nursing staff.
The findings are:
On 01/22/2025 at 11:32 A...
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 observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure medications were kept secure to prevent unauthorized access in Cottages 2, 2A, 3, 4 and 5.
The findings are:
...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
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 shower supplies and spray disinfectant was sto...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure only licensed staff operated feeding pumps to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0806
(Tag F0806)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure dietary preferences were followed for 1 (Resident #16) to prevent weight loss or nutritional deficits. This failed pra...
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide perineal care in a safe, sanitary manner to prevent cross contamination for 1 (Resident #40) of 5 sample residents an...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow proper sanitation and food handling practices to prevent the possible outbreak of foodborne illness. The facility fail...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2023
7 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
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the Current Minimum Data Assessment (MDS) accurately reflected the use of a non-insulin type Diabetes medication to fac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
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 develop and implement a baseline Care Plan that includ...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to review and revise the Care Plan to include that a resident received oxygen therapy to ensure appropriate coordination of care ...
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 follow Physician's Orders to change oxygen tubing weekly to prevent the potential for infection, and failed to ensure an oxyg...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared by methods that maintained ap...
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
(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 food items stored in the refrigerator, freezer and dry storage areas were sealed, covered, dated, and were stored in ac...
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
- • 44% turnover. Below Arkansas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 20 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $43,110 in fines. Higher than 94% of Arkansas facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
About This Facility
What is The Cottages At Texarkana's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns THE COTTAGES AT TEXARKANA 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 Cottages At Texarkana Staffed?
CMS rates THE COTTAGES AT TEXARKANA's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 44%, compared to the Arkansas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at The Cottages At Texarkana?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at THE COTTAGES AT TEXARKANA during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 19 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates The Cottages At Texarkana?
THE COTTAGES AT TEXARKANA 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 120 certified beds and approximately 111 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in TEXARKANA, Arkansas.
How Does The Cottages At Texarkana Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, THE COTTAGES AT TEXARKANA's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (44%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Cottages At Texarkana?
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 Cottages At Texarkana Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, THE COTTAGES AT TEXARKANA 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 Cottages At Texarkana Stick Around?
THE COTTAGES AT TEXARKANA has a staff turnover rate of 44%, 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 Cottages At Texarkana Ever Fined?
THE COTTAGES AT TEXARKANA has been fined $43,110 across 1 penalty action. The Arkansas average is $33,510. 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 Cottages At Texarkana on Any Federal Watch List?
THE COTTAGES AT TEXARKANA 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.