825 North Gaskill, Huntsville, AR 72740 · Madison County · (479) 738-2021
105 certified beds, about 64 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1998
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 045341 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on May 7, 2026, inspectors cited 1 health deficiency (the Arkansas average is 2.7, the national average 9.2).
Of 53 health citations since October 2023, 7 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (7 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 2 fines totaling $18,446 in the last three years; the largest was $11,000, and the latest is dated October 16, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.25 hours per resident per day, against 4.02 across Arkansas and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.56 of those hours.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 53 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteNumber of residents sampled: Number of residents cited: Based on observations, interviews, record reviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing and humidifier bottle were changed as ordered by the Physician, and a resident who was not Care Planned for self-administration was not left unattended while receiving an inhaled medication for one (Resident #5) of two residents reviewed for respiratory therapy.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, interview, facility policy review, and document review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of abuse was reported to facility administration, and subsequently the State Agency, for 1 (Resident #2) of 3 residents reviewed for abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, it was determined that the facility failed to monitor and maintain safe hot water temperatures, which were found to be up to 151 degrees Fahrenheit (F), on all residential wings/units of the facility, including the shower rooms. Further, staff failed to implement the system for reporting and acting upon ongoing concerns related to excessively hot water in resident care areas. Specifically, direct care staff with knowledge of excessively hot water temperatures did not record this information on the facility's Maintenance Log sheets as the concerns were identified. In addition, maintenance staff did not implement any additional checks of facility water temperatures to ensure they were within safe ranges after adjusting the mixing valve; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, document review, and interviews, the administration failed to provide training and oversight to ensure the facility was free from the potential for injury related to identified concerns regarding elevated hot water temperatures. During the survey, the survey team identified hot water temperatures throughout all residential units / wings of the facility. Temperatures were found to be as high as 151 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in resident bathroom sinks, as well as resident shower rooms. Furthermore, the facility failed to ensure call light system was effectively working for 200 and 300 halls; and failed to implement an emergency backup system. The facility also failed to ensure a resident was free from physical abuse for 1 resident, Resident #21, who was heard yelling out at the contract lab technician to not draw the resident's blood. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility's Governing Body failed to ensure facility policies were implemented regarding management and operation of the facility. The Governing Body failed to ensure compliance with Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation during Survey. Immediate Jeopardy and Substandard Quality of Care (SQC) was cited at F600 at a S/S of a J. Additionally, Administration, F835 was cited at a S/S of a J; Quality Assurance and Quality Improvement, F867 was cited at a S/S of a J. Resident Call Systems, F919 was cited at a S/S of K. Supervision to Prevent Accidents, F689 was cited at a S/S of K. It was determined the facility's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation had caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. [...]
Inspectors wroteThe facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Program (QAPI) failed to maintain a program that developed and implemented effective improvement plans to correct identified areas of concern. After identifying Immediate Jeopardy at F600, F689, F835, F837, and F919, the facility's QAPI plan was requested. The Administrator was unable to locate the facility QAPI plan. It was determined the facility's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation had caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. The Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was related to State Operations Manual, Appendix PP, 483.75 - Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement at a scope and severity of L. The Administrator was notified of the IJ on 10/11/2024 at 11:51 AM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from physical abuse for 1 (Resident #21) resident, who was heard yelling out at the contract lab technician to not draw the resident's blood. Specifically, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 physically restrained Resident #21 while the resident's blood was drawn. It was determined the facility's non-compliance with one or more requirements of participation had caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. The Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was related to State Operations Manual, Appendix PP, §483.12 (Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation) at a scope and severity of K. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure the call light system was effectively working for 200 and 300 halls; and failed to implement an emergency backup system for 2 of 4 halls. The facility census was 48. It was determined the facility's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation had caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. The Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was related to State Operations Manul, Appendix PP, §483.90 (Physical Environment) at a scope and severity of K. The IJ began on 10/06/2024 at 6:00 AM shift change, when night shift staff notified day shift staff that the call lights were not working. The Administrator, Director of Nursing (DON), and Assistant Administrator /Business Office Manager (BOM) were notified of the IJ on 10/08/2024 at 5:13 PM. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to answer call bells/lights within a timely manner for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #36, and Resident #18), and the facility failed to have sufficient nursing staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain each resident's highest practicability. Findings Include: During the Resident Council Meeting on 10/10/2024 at 2:17 PM, Resident #18 and Resident #36 reported that it takes the Certified Nursing Assistants a long time to answer the call bells that were given to them. Resident #18 reported that especially right now the call bells were not being answered, the staff reports to them they can't hear them. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to have nursing staff with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and attain or maintain each resident's highest practicability.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not dispose of garbage or refuse properly.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the facility assessment included pertinent information to assure the necessary care and resources were allocated to meet the needs of the residents. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents of the facility. The total census was 48 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to submit required Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) quarterly staffing information for the third quarter of 2024.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff performed hand hygiene; after touching clothing and meal tray paper and providing food for 2 (Resident #8 and Resident #25) residents during dining observation of 1 dining room reviewed for infection control; when going from dirty to clean task during wound care for 1 Resident (Resident #29) for 1 resident reviewed for infection control during wound care; during blood draws for 1 laboratory technician review for infection control; failed to develop a Legionella Water Management Program/Plan; failed to have an effective Antibiotic Stewardship program; and failed to implement infection control practices for 1 of 1 facility reviewed for infection control.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to ensure the facility is free of pests and rodents.
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews and record review, the facility failed to establish a smoking policy in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, regarding smoking, smoking areas, and smoking safety that also takes into account nonsmoking residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review and interviews, the facility failed to provide required training to staff members for 1 of 1 facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review, and in-service reviews, the facility failed to provide communication training for staff members.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI ) training upon hire and in services to direct staff for 1 of 1 facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on document review, and interviews, the facility failed to conduct a compliance/ethics training for staff members. The finds are: Upon observation no compliance/ethics training was observed. Om 10/11/24 at 10:44 AM, during an interview with the Human Resource Director (HRD) it was revealed that the Administrator does all the administrative training, and depending on what the in-service is about depends on who does the in-services. On 10/11/ 2024 at 2:30 PM, during an interview the Administrator reported that they do not have all the required training. And it was 100% his fault. He reported that the training was done, but the Administrator failed to document them. On 10/16/24 at 11:04 AM, during an interview with the HRD it was revealed that the Administrator has the spreadsheet/calendar that keeps up with the in-services and when they are due. [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff was trained in behavioral health residents for 1 (Resident #49) of 2 residents reviewed for dementia care. Specifically, the facility had no formal dementia training for staff, this had the potential to affect 28 residents identified by the facility with an Alzheimer's/Dementia diagnosis.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure a continent resident was able to call for toileting assistance to prevent incontinence for 1 (Resident #18) resident of 18 sampled residents; and the facility failed to ensure all residents were provided with similar dinnerware for 2 (Resident #25 and Resident #32) of 18 sampled residents. Specifically, residents requiring assistance with meals were served using (polystyrene foam) bowls.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain written authorization from the residents or their legal representatives for 2 of 6 residents (Resident #9 and Resident #21) personal funds.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide quarterly trust fund statements to the residents or their legal representatives for 2 of 6 residents (Resident #9 and Resident #21) and failed to ensure generally accepted accounting practices were followed for 2 of 6 residents (Resident #7 and Resident #28) reviewed for personal funds.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide residents who used the shower hallway with a safe, clean, homelike environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure established abuse policies and procedures were implemented after receiving an allegation of abuse for 2 (Resident #21 and Resident #23) of 18 residents sampled for the implementation of abuse prohibition policies and procedures, that resulted in facility and contract staff, involved in allegations of abuse, to remain in the facility and to have continued contact with residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure staff involved in abuse allegations had no further contact with residents after the facility received an allegation of abuse for 2 (Resident #21 and Resident #23) of 18 sampled residents. Specifically, the facility allowed Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) #1, CNA #2, CNA #3 and Phlebotomist, involved in the abuse allegations, to remain in the facility and to have continued contact with residents after the allegation of abuse was made.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure comprehensive assessments were accurately completed for 3 (Resident #1, Resident #10, and Resident #20) of 18 residents reviewed for assessments. The facility failed to accurately assess Resident #1 and Resident #10's use of bed rails and identify that the residents were at high risk for the use of bed rails on the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) and to accurately assess Resident #20's current diagnosis status on the quarterly MDS assessment, which resulted in inaccurate care plans.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure care plans accurately reflected the resident's needs and interventions for care of 5 (Residents #10, #20, #21, #23, and #25) of 18 sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the services provided or arranged by the facility did not meet professional standards of quality for 1 (Resident #23) of 1 sampled resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure assessments, proper bedrail placement and safety precautions for 2 (Resident #1 and Resident #10) of 2 residents reviewed for bedrails. Specifically, at-risk residents were not properly assessed for risks associated with the use of bedrails, and the facility did not perform or maintain documentation of assessments, measurements, or inspections of entrapment zones.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide food items as listed on the menu and follow the recipe during food preparation to meet the needs of the residents in 1 kitchen reviewed for food preparation and service. Specifically, the facility ran out of food on the designated menu due to serving staff meals prior to serving the residents; allowing food to cook down on the steam table for two hours and forty-five minutes for lunch on 10/07/2024; not following the menu for lunch on 10/10/2024, and not taking measurements verify serving size.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and facility document review, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure nutritive value and appearance was maintained for food preparation in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food preparation and services. Specifically, the squash served for lunch on 10/07/2024 was on the steam table for two hours and twelve minutes prior to the start of resident lunch services resulting in overcooked watered-down squash.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, facility document review, and facility policy review, it was determined that the facility failed to prepare and serve food in a way to reduce food borne illnesses and ensure dishes were washed and stored in a sanitary manner with the potential to effect 48 residents served from the 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food preparation and service. Specifically, the facility left uncooked breaded chicken strips uncovered sitting on top of the commercial oven for one hour and fifteen minutes, failed to perform and maintain good hand hygiene during food service and preparation, failed to maintain safe food temperatures for pureed foods during preparation time, did not use soap/detergent to wash utensils during food preparation and allow for proper sanitation time, or store the ice scoop in a clean, dry container.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify residents or their legal representatives when their personal fund account balances approached limits for Medicaid eligibility for 2 of 6 residents (Resident #9 and Resident #21) for personal funds.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to notify the medical provider of a significant change in Resident 14's dental health resulting in pain when dental care was provided.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to provide privacy for 1 of 1 Resident (Resident #47).
Inspectors wroteBased on interviews, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from chemical restraint for 1 (Resident #49) of 1 resident reviewed for chemical restraint.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident #23 was free from unnecessary medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to operate and provide services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and codes, and with accepted professional standards and principles that apply to professionals providing services in such a facility
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure that the most recent state survey was posted and accessible for 48 of 48 residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to post nurse staffing information, including but not limited to: facility name, the current date, resident census, the total number and the actual hours worked by the following categories of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift: A) registered nurses, B) licensed practical nurses, C) certified nursing assistants.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a cognitively impaired resident did not exit the facility without staff knowledge for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 (Residents #1, #2, #3) sampled residents who were at risk for elopement, as evidenced by failure to ensure the locking mechanism on a door was in proper working order allowing Resident #1 to exit the facility. Resident #1 was missing for approximately 30 minutes and was found lying on the ground adjacent to a facility parking lot. The resident sustained a hematoma. The facility failed to ensure all residents were accounted for; no residents were reassessed for risk of elopement; no education was provided to staff; no assessment or monitoring of the remaining facility door locking mechanisms were put in place to prevent lock failures; [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure foods were utilized prior to the use by date, stored in a manner to prevent cross contamination, hair coverings were worn when entering the kitchen and hand hygiene was performed to prevent cross contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure resident's environment was safe, free of hazards, and promoting a home like environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled appropriately and disposed of past the expiration date when applicable.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection control precautions were followed during wound care for 2 (Resident #25 and #27) residents, failed to ensure that bed pans were stored properly when not in use for Resident #21, and clothing and linens were processed in a manner to minimize cross contamination.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure staff did not stand over the resident while assisting with meals to promote dignity for 1 (Resident #25) of 1 sampled resident who required assistance with meals; and the facility failed to ensure residents were not referred to as a feeder to promote dignity to residents who required assistance with meals.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure that a call light was within reach for one (Resident #4) of one sampled resident who requires a call light for assistance.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that 1 (Resident #2) of one sampled resident had completed an Advance Directive upon entry.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure facial hair was removed in a timely manner to maintain dignity for 2 (Resident #25 and #42) of 2 sampled who required assistance for personal hygiene.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that nebulizer masks were stored in a manner to prevent cross contamination of 1 of 1 (Resident #21) of 3 (Resident #21, #48, and #15) sampled residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation an interview the facility failed to ensure that the menu was followed for 2 sampled resident's (Resident #27 and #28) who receive a pureed diet.
10 fire safety citations on file: 1 on May 7, 2026, 3 on October 16, 2024, 6 on October 13, 2023.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| October 16, 2024 | Fine | $11,000 |
| October 16, 2024 | Payment Denial | 1 days from November 14, 2024 |
| December 13, 2023 | Fine | $7,446 |
| December 13, 2023 | Payment Denial | 1 days from January 11, 2024 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Arkansas | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.25 | 4.02 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.56 | 0.41 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.73 | 3.45 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.18 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.51 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | not reported | 49.5% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | not reported | 44.8% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | not reported |
CMS expects 3.24 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.46 on weekdays and 2.73 on weekends, 21% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.38 in October to December 2025 to 3.25 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.25 | 0.56 | 3.46 | 2.73 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 64 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.38 | 0.53 | 3.58 | 2.87 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 59 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Arkansas, Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.05 | 0.40 | 4.28 | 3.47 | 2.0% | 0.1% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arkansas, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $16.55 | $14.52 to $17.34 | 17,260 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $27.22 | $23.82 to $29.43 | 10,010 |
| Registered nurses | $37.95 | $32.04 to $43.40 | 29,400 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Arkansas | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 9.3 | 9.5 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.3 | 3.9 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.6 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.1 | 10.1 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 10.9 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 15.8 | 10.9 | 15.4 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.6 | 2.1 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Meadowview Healthcare and Rehab's Medicare short-stay residents. How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 51.5% · Arkansas: 7 better, 25 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 14 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 10.7% · Arkansas: 0 better, 3 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 16 eligible stays.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
US median of homes 7.1% · Arkansas: 0 better, 7 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 8 eligible stays.
66.7% this home
Median of homes: Arkansas64.4% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 24 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Arkansas0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 26 residents counted.
0.0% this home
Median of homes: Arkansas2.7% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 26 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Arkansas98.8% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 15 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: MEADOWVIEW HEALTHCARE AND REHAB.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pyle, Ruby | W-2 managing employee | Individual | 07/09/2007 | |
| Bryant, Twilla | Corporate director | Individual | 04/09/2008 | |
| Embry, Travis | Corporate director | Individual | 04/08/2008 | |
| Norris, Clyde | Corporate director | Individual | 04/09/2008 | |
| Pyle, Ruby | Corporate director | Individual | 09/01/1998 | |
| Shinn, Charles | Corporate director | Individual | 04/08/2008 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Arkansas. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.