Creekside at the Springs
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
Creekside at the Springs has received a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average-middle of the pack in terms of quality. It ranks #62 out of 218 facilities in Arkansas, placing it in the top half, and #1 out of 2 in Marion County, indicating it's the best option locally. The facility is improving, having reduced issues from 8 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025. Staffing is rated 3 out of 5 stars with a concerning turnover rate of 61%, higher than the state average, which may impact the quality of care. The nursing home has incurred $15,915 in fines, which is higher than 82% of Arkansas facilities, raising concerns about compliance. On the positive side, there is good RN coverage, exceeding 90% of state facilities, which helps identify health issues early. However, there are serious weaknesses, including a critical incident where a resident’s lab results were not monitored, leading to hospitalization and death. Additionally, there were concerns about food safety, such as uncovered food items and expired products in the kitchen. Overall, while there are strengths in nursing coverage, the facility has significant areas that need improvement.
- Trust Score
- C
- In Arkansas
- #62/218
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 61% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $15,915 in fines. Higher than 89% of Arkansas facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 35 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Arkansas. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-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
15pts 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
13 points above Arkansas average of 48%
The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record
May 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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a call light was kept within a resident's reach to allow the resident to summon assistance, and...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
8 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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Someone could have died · 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 necessary care and services were provided including the moni...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure after eating lunch, 1 (Resident #24) of 1 sampled resident's face was cleaned and clothing changed before going into the sitting area ...
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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 14. On 02/05/24, during initial rounds the following observations were made:
a. On 02/05/24 at 11:41 am, Resident #29 expressed...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a pressure relieving device to 1 (Resident #29) of 1 sampled resident who did not have a pressure relieving device in ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure expired medications were removed from the medication carts and medication rooms on 2 (Rose Hall and [NAME] Hall) halls...
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)
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 residents with a physician's order for a pureed, or a mechanical soft diet, received food of the correct consistency to prevent chokin...
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 kitchen employees washed their hands and changed gloves between clean and dirty tasks; utilized food items were used prior to their exp...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2023
3 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
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure privacy was provided during enteral bolus tube feedings to promote dignity for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 (#1, #2, and #3) s...
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
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure enteral feeding bags and containers were dated, and timed, when feeding was initiated for 2 (Resident #2 and #3) of 3 ...
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen staff wore hairnets to keep hair from contacting exposed food, clean and sanitized equipment, utensils and...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
7 deficiencies
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure meals were prepared and served according to the planned written recipes and menu to meet the nutritional needs of 5 re...
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure pureed food items were blended to a smooth and pudding-like texture to promote good nutritional intake and prevent pot...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure pneumococcal immunizations were administered to eligible residents and immunization records were tracked and documented completely f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure the Dietary Manager (DM) had the necessary education and qualifications to meet the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) mi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0802
(Tag F0802)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a sufficient number of competent staff were em...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure meals were not prepared and held on the steam table losing nutritive value, flavor, and appearance; meals were held an...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure foods stored in the kitchen freezer, refrigera...
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?"
- "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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 19 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $15,915 in fines. Above average for Arkansas. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade C (56/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Creekside At The Springs's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Creekside at the Springs 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 Creekside At The Springs Staffed?
CMS rates Creekside at the Springs's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 61%, which is 15 percentage points above the Arkansas average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.
What Have Inspectors Found at Creekside At The Springs?
State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at Creekside at the Springs during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 18 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 Creekside At The Springs?
Creekside at the Springs 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 96 certified beds and approximately 64 residents (about 67% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Yellville, Arkansas.
How Does Creekside At The Springs Compare to Other Arkansas Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arkansas, Creekside at the Springs's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (61%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Creekside At The Springs?
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?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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 Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Creekside At The Springs Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Creekside at the Springs has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Creekside At The Springs Stick Around?
Staff turnover at Creekside at the Springs is high. At 61%, the facility is 15 percentage points above the Arkansas average of 46%. 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 Creekside At The Springs Ever Fined?
Creekside at the Springs has been fined $15,915 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Arkansas average of $33,238. 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 Creekside At The Springs on Any Federal Watch List?
Creekside at the Springs 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.