THE SPRINGS OF AVALON
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Springs of Avalon holds a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average quality with some concerning issues. In Arkansas, it ranks #176 out of 218 facilities, placing it in the bottom half, while it is #2 of 3 in Crittenden County, meaning only one local option is better. Although the trend is improving, with reported issues decreasing from 12 in 2024 to 6 in 2025, the staffing rating is average with a turnover rate of 58%, which is around the state average. The facility has incurred $12,740 in fines, which is higher than 81% of Arkansas facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance issues. RN coverage is average, but there have been specific incidents, such as food safety violations where food was not properly stored or dated, posing a risk for foodborne illnesses. Additionally, the facility failed to provide smoking aprons for residents who smoke, which could jeopardize their safety. Overall, while there are some strengths, such as a good quality measure rating, the weaknesses present significant concerns for potential residents and their families.
- Trust Score
- D
- In Arkansas
- #176/218
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $12,740 in fines. Lower than most Arkansas facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 17 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Arkansas. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 25 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Arkansas average (3.1)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
12pts above Arkansas avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
10 points above Arkansas average of 48%
The Ugly 25 deficiencies on record
Feb 2025
6 deficiencies
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, record review, and interview, it is determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident who was on Transmission Based Precaution had a contact isolation sign in a conspicuou...
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, interviews, and record review the facility failed to provide a smoking apron for 3 (Resident #44, Resident #6, Resident #45) of 4 residents on the secured unit who smoked.
The f...
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, interviews, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure over the counter medications in medication c...
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
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure meals were prepared and served according to the planned written menu to meet the nutrition...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, facility document review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure pureed food items were blended to a...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Surveyor: [NAME], [NAME]
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure ceiling tile...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
2 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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
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 initiate a care plan for elopement risk for 1 (Res...
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision was provided to prevent elo...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0575
(Tag F0575)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and policy review, he facility failed to post, in a form and manner accessible and understandable to residents, contact information for pertinent State agencies and adv...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure an advance directive were in the electronic record, and readily available for 2 (Resident #31, and Resident #47) of 15 (Resident #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, interview and policy review, the facility failed to maintain the building in good repair by (1) ensuring t...
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, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident 31) of 9 (Resident #9, #19, #23, #28, #31, #32, #46, #47, #265) sampled residents who depended on staff for...
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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to perform a Neurological Assessment after an unwitnessed fall for 1 (Resident #264) of 6 (Resident's #3, #24, #47, #49, #264, #265) sample mix...
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 that the resident environment was free from ac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure 4 (Resident #17, 46, #47, and #57) of 14 (Resident #9, #17, #19, #23, #24, #28, #30, #32, #46, #47, #49, #52, #57, #265...
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 observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure an ice scoop on the 300 hall was contained to ensure a sanitary environment was maintained. This failed practice had the possibility...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0924
(Tag F0924)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure that handrails were firmly secured and affixed to the walls in the hallway of the secure unit (500 Hall), which had the...
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 foods stored in the dry storage area refrigerator, and freezer were covered, sealed and dated to decrease the potential for food borne...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2022
7 deficiencies
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a dressing for a non-pressure-related skin cond...
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 residents' fingernails were cleaned to promote good personal hygiene and grooming for 2 (Residents #61 and #44) of 5 (...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
2. Resident #43 had diagnoses of Protein-Calorie Malnutrition, Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (DM). The Significant Change MDS with an ARD of 08/27/22 documented the resident scor...
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 in accordance with the planned, written menu to meet the nutritional needs of the resid...
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
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 nu...
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, record review, 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 complicatio...
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 items stored in the refrigerator and/or freezer were covered and sealed; dietary staff washed their hands before handling clean e...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "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.
- • 25 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • $12,740 in fines. Above average for Arkansas. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade D (43/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
- • 58% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
About This Facility
What is The Springs Of Avalon's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns THE SPRINGS OF AVALON 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 Avalon Staffed?
CMS rates THE SPRINGS OF AVALON's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 58%, which is 12 percentage points above the Arkansas average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 58%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at The Springs Of Avalon?
State health inspectors documented 25 deficiencies at THE SPRINGS OF AVALON during 2022 to 2025. These included: 25 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates The Springs Of Avalon?
THE SPRINGS OF AVALON 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 85 certified beds and approximately 73 residents (about 86% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WEST MEMPHIS, Arkansas.
How Does The Springs Of Avalon Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, THE SPRINGS OF AVALON's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (58%) is significantly higher than 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 Avalon?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's high staff turnover rate and the below-average staffing rating.
Is The Springs Of Avalon Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, THE SPRINGS OF AVALON 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 Avalon Stick Around?
Staff turnover at THE SPRINGS OF AVALON is high. At 58%, the facility is 12 percentage points above the Arkansas average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 58%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was The Springs Of Avalon Ever Fined?
THE SPRINGS OF AVALON has been fined $12,740 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Arkansas average of $33,206. 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 Avalon on Any Federal Watch List?
THE SPRINGS OF AVALON 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.