Franciscan Villa
17110 East 51St Street, Broken Arrow, OK 74012 · For profit - Individual · 110 certified beds · (918) 355-1596 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has 2 actual-harm citations
- the CMS record shows $8,278 in federal fines (most recent 2026-03-11)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 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 fell from 5 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 | 19.8% | 13.6% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.4% | 3.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.9% | 1.9% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.0% | 2.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.1% | 3.4% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.5% | 4.7% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.7% | 13.7% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 29.9% | 25.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.8% | 94.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 6.0% | 4.7% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.9% | 17.1% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 3.9% | 17.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 1.8% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.3% | 74.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 25.5% | 27.3% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.5% | 16.6% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.96 | 2.31 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.70 | 2.96 | 1.80 | worse |
§ 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.
49.5% 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 214 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 42.5% 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 113 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 0.41 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 12% 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 | 49.5%CMS range 42.5–55.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.0%CMS range 8.5–15.2 | 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 | 42.5% | 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 | 32.7% | 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 | 31.9% | 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 | 99.3% | 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 | 95.4% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 2.7% | 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 | 5.1%CMS range 2.9–9.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.84 | 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 110 beds and averages 95.8 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 14 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.
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 3.70 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.13 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.23 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 3.38 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.83 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.12 to 0.14 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2026-03-11 · 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
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure that a resident's behavior was monitored and documented according to the physician's order for 1 (#1) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for behavior monitoring.The administrator identified 86 residents resided in the facility.An undated Suicide Threats, policy, read in part, If the resident remains in the facility, staff will monitor the resident's mood and behavior and update care plans accordingly, until a physician has determined that a risk of suicide does not appear to be present. Staff shall document details of the situation objectively in the resident's medical record.An admission assessment for Resident #1, dated 01/11/26, showed the resident had a depression score of 8 which indicated mild depression and intact cognition.A physician order for Resident #1, dated 01/13/26, showed Oxycodone (an opioid) 10-325 mg every 6 hours for pain.A Brief Trauma Questionnaire for Resident #1, dated 01/20/26, showed the resident had denied any history of being in a war zone, a serious car accident, a major natural disaster, a…
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.
- Actual harm · G2022-07-20 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to implement dietary recommendations for interventions in weight loss for one (#62) of four residents reviewed for significant weight loss. Resident #62 experienced 20% weight loss from 03/31/22 to 07/09/22. The director of nursing identified four residents with significant weight loss. Resident #62 was not listed among those identified with significant weight loss. Findings: Resident #62 had diagnoses which included chronic pulmonary edema, congestive heart failure, and weakness. The physician's progress notes, dated 03/23/22; 03/25/22; 03/29/22; 03/31/22; 04/04/22; 04/14/22; 05/11/22; 05/31/22; 06/08/22; 06/15/22; 06/30/22; and 07/14/22 all documented Resident #62 displayed no signs or symptoms of fluid volume overload. The physician's progress notes documented Resident #62 denied increased edema in their legs and upon examination, did not find evidence of significant edema, and no pedal edema. The progress notes documented the resident's weight was followed closely. The progress notes documented Resident #62…
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 · E2026-06-30 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — patternTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed report no later than two hours to the OSDH and other official agencies after an allegation of abuse was made for 1 (#3) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The DON identified 101 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An undated facility policy titled Compliance with Reporting Allegations of Abuse/Neglect/Exploitation, read in part, The facility will report all alleged violations and all substantiated incidents to the state agency and to all other agencies as required. A care plan for Resident #3, dated 09/02/20, showed the resident had diagnoses which included chronic pain syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, and major depressive disorder. The care plan showed Resident #3 needed assistance with daily care needs. A quarterly assessment for Resident #3, dated 05/14/26, showed the resident had a BIMS score of 11 which indicated they were moderately impaired cognitively. The assessment showed Resident #3 was incontinent of bowel and bladder. The assessment showed Resident #3 was dependent on staff for personal hygiene.…
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 · E2026-06-30 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of abuse for 2 (#1 and #3) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The DON identified 101 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation, revised 11/2024, read in part, An immediate investigation is warranted when suspicion of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, or reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation occur.Identifying and interviewing all involved persons, including the alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, witnesses, and others who might have knowledge of the allegations . Providing complete and thorough documentation of the investigation 1.A care plan for Resident #1, revised 10/10/25, showed the resident had diagnoses which included impulse disorder, persistent mood disorder, and anxiety disorder. A quarterly assessment for Resident #1, dated 03/29/26, showed the resident had a BIMS of 13 which indicated no cognitive impairment. The assessment showed Resident #1 did not have behaviors during the lookback period. An OSDH…
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 · D2026-03-11 · tag F0554 — isolatedAllow residents to self-administer drugs if determined clinically appropriate.
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 the interdisciplinary team determined a resident could safely self-administer a topical medication for 1 (#2) of 6 sampled residents reviewed for medication administration.The administrator identified 86 residents resided in the facility. On 03/09/26 at 1:06 p.m., Resident #2 was observed to have antifungal cream on their bedside table.An undated Resident Self-Administration of Medication policy read in part, A resident may only self-administer medications after the facility's interdisciplinary team has determined which medications may be self-administered.The results of the interdisciplinary team assessment are recorded on the Medication Self-Administration Assessment Form, which is placed in the resident's medical record.A physician's order for Resident #2, dated 10/12/25, showed antifungal external cream 2%. Apply to groin topically every shift for redness.A quarterly assessment, dated 12/27/25, showed that Resident #2 had a BIMS score of 13 indicating intact cognition; had diagnoses which included…
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 · E2024-12-23 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to store medications within locked compartments of a medication cart on one of three halls observed for medication storage. The Director of Nursing identified three medication carts and three treatment carts which stored medications. Findings: On 12/19/24 at 10;43 a.m., an unlocked/unattended treatment cart was observed on the resident hall. From 10:43 a.m. to 10:59 a.m., multiple staff walked past the treatment cart without locking it. On 12/19/24 at 11:01 a.m., LPN #1 walked to the unlocked treatment cart and removed a pair of gloves without locking the cart. On 12/19/24 at 11:07 a.m., LPN #1 returned to the treatment cart, removed items from its drawers and walked away from the medication cart without locking it. On 12/19/24 at 11:08 a.m., LPN #1 stated the treatment cart should be locked and they did not know why it was not locked. On 12/23/24 at 1:30 p.m., an unlocked/unattended treatment cart was observed on the hall. On 12/23/24 at 1:33 p.m., LPN #2 stated the treatment cart should not be left unlocked.
- Potential for harm · E2024-12-23 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide palatable meals for three (#37, #23, and #4) of three residents interviewed regarding food palatability. The dietary manager identified 88 residents who ate meals prepared in the kitchen. Findings: On 12/19/24 at 10:56 a.m., Resident #37 stated the food did not taste good. The resident stated when they ate in the dining room, the food was warm but not hot; and if they ate in their room, the food was cold. On 12/19/24 at 11:11 a.m., Resident #23 stated the food tasted bad. On 12/20/24 at 8:46 a.m., Resident #4 stated the food was served to their room cold, tasted bad, and at times was inedible. The resident stated they received items on their tray which were clearly marked on their dinner card not to be served to them and when they requested an alternative item, were told the kitchen was closed. On 12/23/24 at 11:45 a.m., a test tray was checked for food palatability. The barbecued pulled pork was barely warm, the coleslaw barely cool, and the baked beans were of a good temperature but left a vinegar like after taste.…
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 · E2022-07-20 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — patternEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a clinical rationale when a pharmacy recommendation was declined had been provided for two (#8 and #25) of five residents who were reviewed for unnecessary medications. The DON identified 89 residents who received medications. Findings: 1. Resident #25 had diagnoses which included dementia without behavioral disturbance, anxiety, and recurrent depressive disorder. A Pharmaceutical Consultant Report, dated 05/26/22, documented the pharmacist recommended a gradual dose reduction of Celexa 20 milligrams daily. The physician declined the recommendation. There was no rationale provided on the form, physician's progress notes, or the resident's clinical record. 2. Resident #8 had diagnoses which included congestive heart failure, hypertension, and major depressive disorder. A Pharmaceutical Consultant Report, dated 05/26/22, read in parts, .Please evaluate the routine use of the following psychoactive medications and consider a dose reduction. If a dose reduction is not desired, please indicate below a rationale for the…
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 · E2022-07-20 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure 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 observation and interview, the kitchen failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the main kitchen, including the ice machine, the microwave in the long term care satellite kitchen, and the microwave in the resident dining room. The director of nursing identified all residents ate meals prepared in the kitchen. Findings: On 07/17/22 at 11:00 a.m., an initial tour of the kitchen was performed. There was four large packages of pork loin thawing in a box on the floor of the walk in refrigerator. There were three bottles of personal drinks in resident refrigerator labeled cooler #3. The ice machine was observed to have black, brown, and pink slimy substance scattered in, under, and around the water collection tray which holds the water to be pumped up and recirculated to freeze into ice. On 07/17/22 at 10:20 a.m., the cook was asked how often the ice machine was cleaned. The cook stated they were to clean the ice machine weekly but did not know when the ice machine had last been cleaned. They stated it had obvious been awhile since the ice machine was cleaned. On 07/17/22 at…
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 · D2022-07-20 · tag F0636 — isolatedAssess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to identify significant weight loss for one (#62) of 18 residents whose comprehensive assessments were reviewed. The director of nursing identified four resident with significant weight loss. Findings: The admission assessment, dated 03/24/22 documented Resident #62 was 59 inches tall (4 foot 11 inches) and weighed 107 pounds. The assessment documented the resident had no weight loss or gain. The quarterly assessment, dated 06/22/22 documented the resident weighed 94 pounds. The assessment documented the resident had no weight loss or gain. There was a significant weight loss of 11% from the admission assessment weight of 107 pounds on 03/24/22 to the quarterly assessment weight of 94 pounds on 06/22/22 (approximately three months.) On 07/20/22 at 5:30 p.m., the director of nursing was provided the recorded weights for the admission assessment and quarterly assessment for resident #62 and asked why the resident was not identified as having significant weight loss. The director of nursing stated she did not know the assessment…
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 · D2022-07-20 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure catheter care was documented, order was obtained, and a diagnoses was documented for the use of an indwelling urinary catheter for one (#30) of four sampled residents who were reviewed for indwelling urinary catheter use. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented five residents who had an indwelling urinary catheter. Findings: An undated policy, titled Appropriate Use of Indwelling Catheters, read in part, .The use of an indwelling urinary catheter will be in accordance with physician orders, which will include the diagnoses or clinical condition making the use of the catheter necessary . Resident #30 had diagnoses which included Parkinson's disease. The resident's admission assessment, dated 05/23/22, documented the resident was cognitively intact for daily decision making, was frequently incontinent of urine, and did not have an indwelling urinary catheter. Review of the electronic medical record did not reveal documentation of catheter care. The Order Summary Report, dated…
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 · D2022-07-20 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure infection control was maintained during wound care for one (#57) of two sampled residents who were observed during wound care. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form identified ten residents who had pressure ulcers. Findings: Resident #57 had diagnoses which included a venous wound to the left and right calf. On 07/18/22 at 10:50 a.m., LPN #2 was observed to provide wound care to resident #57's bilateral lower extremity in the dining room. LPN #2 was observed to sit on the floor and place a piece of wax paper on the floor. The gloves were observed to hang off of the wax paper and touch the floor. The nurse was observed to cut the soiled dressing off of the resident's right leg and place the soiled scissors on top of the pile of unused gloves. The nurse was observed to leave the area and gather supplies. While the nurse was away from the resident, the resident placed their left foot onto the wax paper and dressing supplies stored on the floor atop the wax paper. LPN #2 returned and donned gloves without…
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.
- 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
$8,278 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,278 — penalty dated 2026-03-11
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| RIVERS EDGE OPERATIONS III LLC | Organization | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 06/01/2025 |
| RIVERS EDGE PARTNERS II LLC | Organization | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 06/01/2025 |
| HANOVER, YAACOV | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2025 |
| KRAVETZ, AVROHOM | Individual | INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | since 06/01/2025 |
| FRANCISCAN VILLA SNF REALTY LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2025 |
| GANZ, DAVID | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2025 |
| RETTER, S. ARYEH | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2025 |
| SKYBLUE HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/26/2026 |
| BEARER, RUBEN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2025 |
| MOORE, JOSEPH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2025 |
| RIVERS EDGE PROPERTY HOLDINGS III LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 11 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
5 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.
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 375525. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-12-23, 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.