THE SPRINGS BROADWAY
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Springs Broadway in West Memphis, Arkansas has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not exceptional. It ranks #128 out of 218 facilities in the state, placing it in the bottom half, yet it is the top option in Crittenden County. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 10 in 2024 to just 4 in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength, with a turnover rate of 40%, below the state average of 50%, and more RN coverage than 88% of facilities in Arkansas, which is beneficial for residents' care. However, there have been concerns, such as failure to ensure proper food storage and inadequate attention to residents' daily care needs, including grooming and range of motion exercises, which could affect their well-being. On a positive note, there have been no fines recorded, indicating compliance with regulations.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In Arkansas
- #128/218
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 40% 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 ○ Average
- Each resident gets 33 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Arkansas. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 21 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
-
Staff turnover below average (40%)
8 points below Arkansas average of 48%
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Near Arkansas average (3.1)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near Arkansas avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record
Mar 2025
4 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
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that activities of daily living (ADL) were performed, and nail care was completed for 2 (Resident #9 and Resident #49)...
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 F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure that limited range of motion did not worsen for 2 residents (Resident #9 and Resident #49) of 3 sampled residents revi...
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 F0805
(Tag F0805)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, facility record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was in the proper form for the residents, affecting six residents with orders for pureed diets in the fac...
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
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, facility record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that cross contamination did not occur during lunch service for one out of one kitchen.
The findings include...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
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
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to serve a palatable meal for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for meal se...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
9 deficiencies
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 the resident's medical and nursing needs related to oxygen use to promote contin...
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 residents hair was neat and clean, and facial hair shaven for 1 (Resident #160) of 31 (Residents #2, #4, #5, #7, #9, #...
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 maintain a safe, functional, sanitary, and homelike e...
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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the janitor closet, the treatment nurse office, and the door to the dirty side of the laundry which contained chemical...
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
4. Resident #258, had diagnoses of Malignant Neoplasm of Upper Lobe, Right Bronchus of Lung, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, with an admission date of 1/18/2024.
a. A Physicians Order with a s...
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 drugs and biologicals were stored in accordance with currently accepted profession principles, as evidenced by the Trea...
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 F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure meals were served at temperatures that were acceptable to the residents to improve palatability and encourage good nutr...
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
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Surveyor: [NAME], [NAME]
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure foods stored in the dry storage area ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure notification of Medicare non-coverage were provided to inform the residents and/or their responsible parties of financial liability ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
7 deficiencies
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, record review, and interview, the facility failed ensure an indwelling catheter was maintained in a way to ensure urinary flow was not obstructed, which had the potential to caus...
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, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) tube feeding bag was properly labeled to prevent possible contamination and...
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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was administered as ordered by the physician for 1 (Resident #70) of 4 (Resident #7, #9, #29, #70) sample mix r...
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
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a dairy product was served in accordance with the planned, written menu to meet the nutritional needs of the residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a splint, hand roll, or other positioning device was consistently utilized to prevent further decline in Range of Moti...
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 F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure meals were served at temperatures that were acceptable to the residents, to improve palatability and encourage good nut...
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 freezer, refrigerator and dry storage area were covered, sealed, and dated to minimize the potenti...
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.
- • 40% turnover. Below Arkansas's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is The Springs Broadway's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns THE SPRINGS BROADWAY an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Arkansas, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is The Springs Broadway Staffed?
CMS rates THE SPRINGS BROADWAY's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 40%, compared to the Arkansas average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at The Springs Broadway?
State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at THE SPRINGS BROADWAY during 2022 to 2025. These included: 20 with potential for harm and 1 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates The Springs Broadway?
THE SPRINGS BROADWAY 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 119 certified beds and approximately 73 residents (about 61% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in WEST MEMPHIS, Arkansas.
How Does The Springs Broadway Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, THE SPRINGS BROADWAY's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (40%) 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 Springs Broadway?
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 Broadway Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, THE SPRINGS BROADWAY 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 3-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 Broadway Stick Around?
THE SPRINGS BROADWAY has a staff turnover rate of 40%, 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 Broadway Ever Fined?
THE SPRINGS BROADWAY 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 Springs Broadway on Any Federal Watch List?
THE SPRINGS BROADWAY 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.