F684 in Arkansas. Pick another state for the same tag.
Against expectation — 2025
Arkansas cites F684 more often than its own record predicts
Versus expected share1.31×
1.31 times the share F684 takes of citations nationally.
Share of Arkansas citations5.62%
Of every deficiency written in Arkansas in 2025, this is the portion that was F684.
Arkansas5.62%
National4.29%
Share of all citations that were F684.
Each state is measured against its own expected share, not against other states.
In the surveyor’s words
What Arkansas surveyors wrote
F684 findings written in Arkansas, one from each severity band recorded here, most serious first.
Severity is as the surveyor wrote it. Some findings had already been corrected before the survey.
K · Immediate jeopardy, patternJuly 9, 2026
Number of residents sampled:
Number of residents cited:
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to identify and assess two (Resident #72 and Resident #78) of three residents' change in condition resulting in their death.
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) situation was related to, Appendix PP, CFR 483.35 at a scope and severity of J. …
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received an evaluation and treatment, as appropriate, in a time frame that would meet the medical needs of the resident in accordance with professional standards of practice. Specifically, the facility failed to notify the Physician of a low blood sugar, failed to notify the Physician of resident ' s multiple refusals of evening blood glucose checks for the month of October, and failed to notify the Physician and other facility staff after a resident had a fall. This failed practice resulted in actual harm for Resident #29 who fell and sustained a right femur fracture and right hip fracture and did not receive appropriate medical care for 6 days. …
D · No harm, potential for more than minimal, isolatedAugust 27, 2026
Based on observations, interviews, record review and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to ensure incontinence care was provided to meet professional standards of practice for one (Resident #7) of three residents reviewed.
The findings include:
A review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #7 on 08/21/2025, with diagnoses that included injury of cervical spinal cord, muscle wasting and atrophy, and muscle contractures of bilateral lower legs.
A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/27/2026, revealed Resident #7 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. …
Deficiency Index is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or approved by CMS, Medicare, or any government agency. About this data · Report a correction