Oak Creek Terrace INC

Location & what’s nearby

Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

48.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 139 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 67.3% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 55 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.42 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 71% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 69 beds and averages 62.1 residents a day — about 90% occupied, or roughly 7 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.31 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.84 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.74 to 0.40 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 57% is well above the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

21 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 11 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · D2026-04-24 · tag F0655 — isolated
  Create and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to implement a baseline care plan within 48 hours and have fall interventions in place. This affected one (#58) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 64.Findings include:Review of the medical record revealed Resident #58 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included other displaced fracture of upper end of right humerus, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, chronic kidney disease, and anxiety disorder. Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #58 had moderately impaired cognition, dependent with toileting and bathing, uses wheelchair for mobility.Review of the admission assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #58 revealed fall risk.Review of the medical record for Resident #58 revealed falls on 03/20/26, 03/27/26, 03/27/26 and 04/10/26.Review of the care plan dated 03/24/26 revealed Resident #58 is at risk for falls and interventions…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-24 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure fall prevention interventions were being followed. This affected one (#60) of three residents reviewed for falls. The facility census was 64.Findings include:Review of the medical record revealed Resident #60 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included cerebral atherosclerosis, pulmonary fibrosis, chronic kidney disease, and repeated falls.Review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #60 had severe cognitive impairment, was dependent with bathing and toileting.Review of the care plan dated 03/13/26 for Resident #60 revealed at risk for falls with interventions including bilateral fall mats while in bed.Review of the medical record for Resident #60 revealed falls on 03/09/26, 03/13/26 times two, 03/14/26 times two, 03/22/26 times two, 03/24/26, 03/26/26, and 03/27/26.Observation on 04/24/26 at 10:34 A.M. of Resident #60 lying in bed in her room with no…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-09-29 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, staff interview, review of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff wore the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) when providing care for a resident who was positive for COVID-19, and failed to complete proper hand hygiene prior to exiting the room. This affected one (#24) of five residents reviewed for infection control. The facility identified there were five residents who were positive for COVID-19 (and resided on the dementia care unit) during the survey. This had the potential to affect 10 residents who resided on the dementia care unit who were not positive for COVID-19. Findings include: Medical record review for Resident #55 revealed an admission of 02/14/22. Review of the physician orders dated 09/28/25 revealed Resident #55 was placed in droplet precautions due to a positive testing for COVID-19. Observation on 09/29/25 at 8:27 A.M. revealed Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) #170 obtained Resident #55's breakfast tray off the cart in the hallway and placed a gown and gloves…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-05-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — widespread
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were followed during a dressing change for a pressure ulcer. This affected one (#29) of the two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers during the annual survey. The facility identified two residents (#27 and #29) with pressure ulcers. The facility also failed to ensure their Water Management Plan (WMP) was followed. This had the potential to affect 62 residents who resided in the facility. The facility census was 62. Findings included: 1) Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 09/15/22. Medical diagnoses included fracture of the left femur, heart failure, hypertension, renal insufficiency, neurogenic bladder, malnutrition, and respiratory failure. Review of a physician order for Resident #29 dated 04/16/25, revealed the resident was ordered to have her sacrum pressure ulcer cleansed with normal saline, have Silvadene applied, then a barrier cream…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-05-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
  Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observations, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure food and utensils were stored in a safe and sanitary manner. This had the potential to affect 61 out of the 62 residents as the facility identified one resident (#41) with a diet of nothing by mouth (NPO) and received no food from the kitchen. The facility census was 62. Findings include: Observation of the kitchen on 05/14/25 at 12:11 P.M. with Dietary Manager (DM)#06, revealed frozen bags of pot roast were being stored in water in the preparation (prep) sink. Interview at the same time with DM #06, verified they were thawing the pot roast and that cold water should be running while food is thawing in the sink. Continued observation of the kitchen on 05/14/25 at 12:13 P.M. with DM #06, revealed a stack of Styrofoam cups stored on a cart in the dining room. Next to the stack of cups was a bucket of sanitizer solution and a spray bottle labeled Buckeye Eco Heavy Duty Cleaner stored on the shelf above. Interview at the same time with DM #06, verified the findings. DM #06 stated the Styrofoam cups…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-05-15 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
  Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, medical record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure physician orders were followed during a dressing change of a pressure ulcer. This affected one (#29) of the two residents reviewed for pressure ulcers during the annual survey. The facility identified two residents (#27 and #29) with pressure ulcers. The facility census was 62. Findings included: Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 09/15/22. Medical diagnoses included fracture of the left femur, heart failure, hypertension, renal insufficiency, neurogenic bladder, malnutrition, and respiratory failure. Review of a physician order for Resident #29 dated 04/16/25, revealed the resident was ordered to have her sacrum pressure ulcer cleansed with normal saline, have Silvadene applied, then a barrier cream applied, and covered with an abdominal (ABD) pad placed over the wound twice daily. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #29 was…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited beforedisputed · IDR2025-05-15 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
  Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a fall with major injury was thoroughly investigated. This affected one (#29) resident of the five residents reviewed for accidents. The facility census was 62. Findings included: Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 09/15/22. Medical diagnoses included fracture of the left femur, heart failure, hypertension, renal insufficiency, neurogenic bladder, malnutrition, and respiratory failure. Review of a Fall Assessment for Resident #29 dated 02/03/25, revealed the resident was at a medium risk for falls. Review of the Plan of Care for Resident #29 dated 02/19/25 revealed the resident was at risk for falls related to age, history of falls, and physical debility. Interventions included to ensure basic needs are met, offer food and fluids, monitor bowel and bladder function, monitor for a comfortable environment, monitor for change in medical status, low blood pressure, shortness of…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-05-15 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolated
  Ensure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review, observation, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the placement of a gastronomy tube (G-tube), failed to ensure a resident was positioned at 30 - 45 degree angle, failed to ensure the syringe for administering medications via the G-tube was dated, and failed to ensure medications being administered through the G-tube were properly diluted prior to administering them. This affected one (#41) of the two residents identified by the facility as having a G-tube. The facility census was 62. Findings included: Review of the medical record for Resident #41 revealed an admission date of 06/19/24. Diagnoses included dementia, dysphagia, diabetes mellitus, cellulite of the left lower limb, peripheral vascular disease, renal insufficiency, and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #41 was moderately cognitively impaired and had a G-tube for nutrition. Review of a physician order for…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ddisputed · IDR2025-05-15 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolated
  Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on medical record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure residents' medical records were complete and accurately documented when a resident sustained a fall with a major injury and was documented in a resident's medical record. This affected one (#29) of the five residents reviewed for accidents during the annual survey. The facility census was 62. Findings included: Review of the medical record for Resident #29 revealed an admission date of 09/15/22. Medical diagnoses included fracture of the left femur, heart failure, hypertension, renal insufficiency, neurogenic bladder, malnutrition, and respiratory failure. Review of a Fall Assessment for Resident #29 dated 02/03/25, revealed the resident was at a medium risk for falls. Review of the Plan of Care for Resident #29 dated 02/19/25 revealed the resident was at risk for falls related to age, history of falls, and physical debility. Interventions included to ensure basic needs are met, offer food and fluids, monitor bowel and bladder…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-04-29 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were completed in the areas of activities, activities of daily living, dehydration, and pain . This affected six (#23, #05, #43, #467, #469, and #57) of 18 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility census was 62. Findings included: 1. Medical record review for Resident #23 revealed an admission date of 08/19/21. Medical diagnoses included renal insufficiency, heart failure and Non-Alzheimer's Dementia. Review of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #23 was rarely or never understood. His functional status was extensive assistance for bed mobility and toilet use. He was total dependence for transfers and eating. He was always incontinent for bladder and bowel. Review of the comprehensive care plans for Resident #23 revealed he didn't have one for activities or for activities of daily living. Interview with Activity Director (AD) #03 on 04/27/22 at 11:09…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

“Disputed” is CMS’s own flag, not our reading: the CMS deficiency file records whether the home has formally contested a citation, and we reproduce that. IDR is Informal Dispute Resolution, run by the state survey agency that wrote the citation; IIDR is Independent Informal Dispute Resolution, a separate process before an outside entity, available when CMS has proposed a civil money penalty. They are different processes and we mark them differently. Two things to hold at once. A disputed citation is still a citation — it was written by a surveyor, it stands on the record unless and until it is changed, and we neither hide it nor discount it. And we cannot tell you how the dispute came out: CMS publishes that a citation is under dispute, not the outcome, so a tag marked here may since have been upheld, reduced, or deleted, and an unmarked tag may have been disputed and resolved before this file was cut. Ask the home what it disputed and why — it is entitled to tell you, and the answer is often the most informative thing on this page.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to CARING PLACE HEALTHCARE GROUP — 5 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 32 rows in the source record cover these 18 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

8 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

This home reported $879K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 10% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in OH