Magnolia Creek Skilled Nursing And Therapy
2610 Cedar Creek Drive, Altus, OK 73521 · For profit - Partnership · 158 certified beds · (580) 480-1800 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- nursing-staff turnover (59%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
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
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
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.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 4.1% | 13.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.0% | 3.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.4% | 1.9% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.4% | 2.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 3.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.4% | 4.7% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 7.6% | 13.7% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 25.7% | 25.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.5% | 94.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.7% | 4.7% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.1% | 17.1% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.9% | 17.5% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.9% | 1.8% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.5% | 74.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.8% | 27.3% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 24.5% | 16.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.24 | 2.31 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.70 | 2.96 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
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.
55.1% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 274 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 49.6% 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 119 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 0.26 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 36% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 55.1%CMS range 50.8–58.9 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.4%CMS range 7.6–13.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 49.6% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 50.4% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 26.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.6% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.1% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 7.8%CMS range 5.2–11.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.87 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 158 beds and averages 79.7 residents a day — about 50% occupied, or roughly 78 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.64 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.32 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.26 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.26 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.79 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.36 to 0.24 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 59% is well above the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
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.
17 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 7 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · E2026-01-28 · tag F0687 — failed to care for feet properly — patternProvide appropriate foot care.
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, and interview, the facility failed to provide toenail care for 1 (#7) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for foot care.The administrator identified 72 residents resided in the facility. Findings:On 01/20/26 at 1:49 p.m., Resident #7's toenails were observed to be thick, overgrown, and were half an inch long.A significant change assessment, dated 12/03/25, showed Resident #7's cognition was intact with a brief interview for mental status score of 13. The assessment showed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis which included diabetes mellitus and required partial to moderate assistance from staff for most activities of daily living.The facility did not have a policy related to nail care.Nurse notes, dated 08/30/25 through 01/20/26, did not show Resident #7's toenails needed to be cut or a referral to the podiatrist was needed.On 01/20/26 at 1:49 p.m., Resident #7 stated their toenails were long and needed to be cut. Resident #7 stated their toenails had…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-05 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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 and interview, the facility failed to investigate an incident of alleged resident-to-resident abuse for one (#1) of three sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The administrator identified 72 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Resident Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation of Property policy, dated 11/01/22, read in part, The licensed nurse in charge of the unit shall then complete an incident report reflecting any and all findings from the assessment of the resident following the incident. The policy read in part, A member of the administrative staff will then conduct a thorough investigation of the incident/allegation to obtain information about the incident and complete ODH-283. The policy also read in part, Mental abuse is the use of verbal or nonverbal conduct which cause or has the potential to cause the resident to experience humiliation, intimidation, fear, agitation, or degradation. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, insomnia, and depressive…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-05 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to update a resident's care plan for wandering behavior for one (#2) of three sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The administrator reported 72 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident # 2 had diagnoses which included depression. A Behavior note, dated 08/06/24, read in part, Res has had an increase in wandering and exit seeking .Elopement band in place and functioning .Staff continue to redirect. A care plan, dated 09/06/24, documented no care areas related to wandering or elopement behaviors. A comprehensive assessment, dated 09/23/24, documented the resident had severely impaired cognition and no behaviors. A Behavior note, dated 10/30/24, read in part, Resident keeps roaming the halls and entering resident's rooms, resident keeps being redirected to her hallway. On 11/04/24 at 12:30 p.m., Resident #2 was observed in their wheelchair going down the 400 hall looking into other resident's rooms. On 11/04/24 at 12:45 p.m., Resident #1 reported Resident #2 would enter their room uninvited and go…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-10 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the call light was in reach for one (#2) of three sampled residents reviewed for timely call lights. The DON identified 82 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #2 had diagnoses which included legal blindness. Resident #2's annual assessment, dated 02/22/24, documented the resident's vision was severely impaired and required moderate assistance with activities of daily living. On 09/05/24 at 7:10 p.m., Resident #2's call light was observed by the side of their drawer. The resident was sitting in a recliner. Resident #2 stated they used their call light when they needed assistance. They tried to locate the call light and could not find it. They stated, now this makes me mad. The call light was out of reach of the Resident. On 09/05/24 at 7:29 p.m., CMA #1 stated resident #2 used their call light and sometimes came to the door and yelled if they needed assistance. They stated the resident is blind and only able to see shadows. They stated the resident is a fall risk. On 09/05/24 at 7:29 p.m., CMA #1 made…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-10 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's bed was made and an extra mattress was store appropriately for one (#2) of three residents reviewed for homelike environment. The DON identified 82 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #2 had diagnoses which included legal blindness. On 09/05/24 at 7:00 p.m., Resident #2 stated their bed was not made. They stated it had been like that for days. There were two pillows without pillowcases and two personal pillows. There was a spare mattress in the resident's room by a wall table. On 09/05/24 at 7:33 p.m., CMA #1 made observation of Resident #2's room. On 09/05/24 at 7:38 p.m., CMA #1 stated the resident's bed was not made. They stated beds were supposed to be always made. They stated they were not sure why the extra mattress was in the resident's room and the resident was a fall risk.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-10 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure wound care was performed, following physician orders, for one (#5) of three residents reviewed for wound care. The DON reported 82 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A policy Skin and Wound Care Guidelines, not dated, documented Medical treatments will be ordered by a physician or their designee and transcribed onto the treatment record. The licensed nurse will document each time the treatment is completed. Resident #5 had diagnoses which included right femur fracture. The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A physician order for resident #5, dated 08/13/24, documented Cleanse surgical wound to right hip with wound cleanser, pat dry with 4 X 4' s', apply silver dressing to site every 5 days/PRN until healed. Resident #5's treatment administration record documented silver dressing was applied to right hip on 08/13/24. Resident #5's medical record was reviewed and documented no new wound care order for 08/15/24. The medical…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-10 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 and interview, the facility failed to accurately dispense medication to a resident discharging from the facility for one (#6) of one resident reviewed for discharge. The DON reported 82 resident resided in the facility. Findings: The Administrator reported no facility policy related to discharge or dispensing medication at discharge. Resident #6 had diagnoses which included right artificial hip replacement. The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A comprehensive assessment, dated 08/09/24, documented resident #6's cognition was intact. A Discharge summary, dated [DATE], documented the resident's medications were given to the resident and their husband, and education was given on the importance of administration time. A form medications released on leave of absence or dismissal for resident #6, dated 08/22/24, documented the following medication and amounts sent home with the resident: Morphine 15 mg - 34 Oxycodone 10 mg - 28 Lomotil - 8 Venlafaxine 75 mg - 4 Multivitamin - 14…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-06-21 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — patternImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to notify the physician of a severe weight gain of 36 pounds (17.24 %) for one (#45) of two sampled residents reviewed for weights. The facility census was 77. Findings: A Dining Services Policies and Procedures Weight List, revised 07/09/08, read in part .Residents' weights are routinely and systematically monitored .Residents with a weight loss or gain of five percent or more, within one month, should be re-weighed and entered into PCC by the 15th of the month. The resident's physician should be notified of any Significant Weight Change in PCC A Resident's Family or Physician Notification of Change Guideline policy, dated 12-01-09, read in part The facility will inform the resident; consult with the resident's physician .of the following events .A significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status. (i.e. a deterioration in health, mental or psychosocial states in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications . a need to alter treatment significantly . Resident #45 had…
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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-06-21 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation record review and interview, the facility failed to provide assistance with care in a timely manner for three (#12, 18 and #36) of three sampled residents reviewed. The director of nursing identified 25 residents who were totally dependent on two staff for care. Findings: 1. Resident #12 had diagnosis to include dementia, anxiety, major depression, hypertension and hyperlipidemia. Resident #12 care plan, last revised 01/24/24, read in part, .I am at risk for pressure ulcer D/T my incontinence .provide incontinent care every 2 hours as needed . A quarterly assessment, dated 04/2024, documented Resident #12 was not able to complete the brief interview for mental status interview to determine cognition, and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. Resident #12 was dependent on staff for toileting and hygiene and required two or more staff were required to complete the activity. On 06/20/24 at 5:00 a.m., Resident #12, was observed up in their geri-chair in the lobby near the nurses station. On 06/20/24 from 5:00 a.m. through 8:05 a.m. direct observation was made…
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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-06-21 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to assess and monitor a resident with a severe weight gain of 36 pounds (17.24 %) for one (#45) of two sampled residents reviewed for weights. The facility census was 77. Findings: A Dining Services Policies and Procedures Weight List, revised 07/09/08, read in part .Residents' weights are routinely and systematically monitored .Residents with a weight loss or gain of five percent or more, within one month, should be re-weighed and entered into PCC by the 15th of the month. The resident's physician should be notified of any Significant Weight Change in PCC A Resident's Family or Physician Notification of Change Guideline policy, dated 12/01/09, read in part The facility will inform the resident; consult with the resident's physician .of the following events .A significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status. (i.e. a deterioration in health, mental or psychosocial states in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications . a need to alter treatment significantly .…
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.
Show the remaining 7 citations
- Potential for harm · E2024-06-21 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure they had sufficent staff to provide care to residents. The facility ceneus was 77. Findings: A review of the stafing sheets for 06/07/24 through 06/21/24 documentd the 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., shift had one nurse and two aides for the long term care side on the following dates: 06/15/24; 06/16/24; 06/18/24, 06/19/24, and 06/20/24. 1. Resident #12 had diagnosis to include dementia, anxiety, major depression, hypertension and hyperlipidemia. Resident #12 care plan, last revised 01/24/24, read in part, .I am at risk for pressure ulcer D/T my incontinence .provide incontinent care every 2 hours as needed . A quarterly assessment, dated 04/2024, documented Resident #12 was always incontinent of bowel and bladder, was dependent on staff for toileting and hygiene, and required two or more staff were required to complete the activity. On 06/20/24 at 5:00 a.m., Resident #12, was observed up in their geri-chair in the lobby near the nurses station. On 06/20/24 from 5:00 a.m. through 9:10 a.m., direct observation…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-06-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain infection control measures: a. during provision of wound care and incontinent care for one (#4) of four sampled residents reviewed for infection control; b. to alert staff of enhanced barrier precautions when providing care for one (#9) of four sampled residents reviewed for infection control; and c. during provision of peri care for one (#32) of four sampled residents reviewed for infection control; and d. when emptying a catheter for a resident on enhanced barrier precautions for one (#42) of four sampled residents reviewed for infection control. Facility census: 77 Findings: The facility's Infection Control and Isolation Policy, revised 03/28/24, read in part, Gloves are used to prevent contamination of healthcare personnel hands when . anticipating direct contact with blood, or bodily fluids, mucous membranes, non-intact skin and other potentially infectious materials. The policy also read, infectious organisms can be reduced…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-21 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete a significant change assessment for one (#52) of 15 sampled residents reviewed for assessments. The facility census was 77. Findings: Resident #52 had diagnoses which included, paraplegia, and high blood pressure. An annual assessment, dated 12/25/23, documented the Resident #52 was independent with oral hygiene, needed setup or clean up assistance with shower/bathing, supervision or touching assistance with upper body dressing and partial to moderate assistance with lower body dressing. A quarterly assessment, dated 03/19/24, documented the Resident #52 required setup or clean up assistance with oral hygiene, needed partial/moderate assistance with shower/bathing and upper body dressing and needed substantial maximal assistance with lower body dressing. On 06/19/24 at 3:37 p.m., the ADON was asked to review the last two assessments dated 12/25/23 and 03/19/24 for ADL assistance. They were asked if there should have been a significant change assessment completed with the decline in two or more areas. They stated,…
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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-01-17 · tag F0626 — isolatedPermit a resident to return to the nursing home after hospitalization or therapeutic leave that exceeds bed-hold policy.
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 and interview, the facility failed to allow a resident to return to the facility after a hospitalization for one (#3) of two sampled residents reviewed for discharge. The facility failed to have a written policy on permitting residents to return to the facility after they are hospitalized or placed on therapeutic leave. The DON reported 81 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included peripheral vascular disease, chronic venous hypertension with ulcers to bilateral lower extremities, general anxiety, and depressive disorder. A quarterly assessment, dated 10/26/23, documented the resident was cognitively intact and no behaviors were exhibited. A physician phone order, dated 12/26/23, documented, Discharge res to [hospital name withheld] ER for harmful behaviors towards self and others. A nurse progress note, dated 12/26/23 at 10:10 p.m., documented, The resident combative, throwing things at staff and other…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2023-05-04 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen tubing and humidifier bottles were dated for three (#10, 40, and #78) of three residents reviewed for oxygen therapy. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 05/01/23, documented 36 residents received respiratory treatments. Findings: The facility's Respiratory Equipment Changeout Schedule policy, dated 11/11/19, read in parts, .Each facility will stock disposables necessary to provide respiratory therapy treatments to residents .When this equipment is changed out the equipment needs to be dated .Changeout schedule: O2 humidifier one time per month, Cannula one time a month . 1. Res #10 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A Physician Order, dated 03/09/23, documented O2 at three liters via nasal cannula. An admission MDS assessment, dated 03/15/23, documented oxygen therapy while a resident. On 05/01/23 at 3:30 p.m., Resident #10 was observed with O2 at three liters via nasal cannula in use. The oxygen tubing 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-05-04 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete a significant change assessment for one (#68) of one resident reviewed for hospice services. The facility Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 05/01/23, documented three residents received hospice services. Findings: Resident #68 was admitted with diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus and dementia. A hospice Certification of Terminal Illness Statement, dated 01/18/23, read in parts, .I certify that this patient is terminally ill, with a life expectancy of six months or less .admitted to hospice with terminal dx of Alzheimer's disease .physician signature, dated 02/07/23 . Resident #68's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 02/10/23, documented the resident required staff assistance with ADLs and contained no documentation related to hospice services. A Significant Change MDS Assessment, dated 03/14/23, documented Resident #68 received hospice services. On 05/03/23 at 4:42 p.m., the RN regional nurse consultant reported hospice services should have been captured on a MDS significant change…
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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-05-04 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide assistance with incontinence for dependent residents, in a timely manner, for two (#3 and #70) of two dependent residents reviewed for assistance with activities of daily living. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 05/01/23, documented 91 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #3 had diagnoses which included congestive heart failure, diabetes, chronic pain, anxiety, and depression. An Annual MDS Assessment, dated 03/21/23, documented the resident was cognitively intact. The assessment documented the resident required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and most activities of daily living. A Care Plan, dated 04/06/23, documented the resident had a self-care deficit related to limited mobility and weakness. Physician Orders, dated May 2023, documented the resident required a transfer/grab bar in place on the bed to promote independence with repositioning and transfers while in bed due to muscle weakness. On 05/01/23 at 3:21 p.m., Resident #3's…
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.
“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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to BRIDGES HEALTH — 33 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 32 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.6★, per CMS)
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
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BRIDGES EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/31/2020 |
| ORIX REAL ESTATE CAPITAL LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | — | since 05/01/2023 |
| KENNETH D. GREINER III REVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 12/31/2020 |
| BOONE, MICHAEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| GRIFFIN, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| COBLE, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| DEROIN, KRISTY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2021 |
| MAHANEY, JULIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/01/2024 |
| DIMOND, MICHAEL | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/25/2025 |
| ALTUS REAL ESTATE, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/30/2006 |
| AMITY CARE, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/25/2025 |
| FLP, L.L.C. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/03/2025 |
| RENEW PROPERTIES, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 04/30/2026 |
| BAKER, KAREN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/04/2025 |
| DUNCAN, ROBERT | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/13/2022 |
| LONG, DENNIS | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2021 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 21 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
7 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.
About 72% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $626K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 OK
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Oklahoma Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 375505. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-28, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.