No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Carnegie Nursing Home, Inc.

225 North Broadway, Carnegie, OK 73015 · For profit - Individual · 100 certified beds · (580) 654-1439 Medicaid only — no Medicare

Call the home — (580) 654-1439 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 13 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • 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
Worth asking about
  • its payroll-based staffing 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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 2 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
101 E Ash St · (580) 654-1154 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
15 W Main St · (580) 654-1111 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
110 E Main St · (580) 654-1262 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Cedar St · (580) 654-1004 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 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 held steady at 5 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.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased10.4%13.6%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight24.2%3.3%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder2.9%1.9%0.9%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%2.8%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms2.2%3.4%6.5%better
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury2.0%4.7%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened14.0%13.7%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication26.1%25.7%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.6%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers5.2%4.7%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control5.0%17.1%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table15.3%17.5%17.1%better

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.

Staffing

0.30
RN hours/ resident / day
1.24
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.45
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.99
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.29
RN hoursweekends
Total nursing turnover
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 100 beds and averages 26.3 residents a day — about 26% occupied, or roughly 74 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 3.99 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.30 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.450 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 3.68 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.11 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.30 to 0.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

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

1
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-09-05)
8
at the previous standard inspection (2024-04-18)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-09-05 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement an infection control plan for enhanced barriers precautions for 2 (#3 and #4) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for enhanced barrier precautions.The ADON reported two residents on enhanced barrier precautions. Findings: 1. On 09/04/25 at 10:58 a.m., LPN #1 was observed to perform catheter care for Resident #3. LPN #1 washed their hands and applied gloves, then started the resident's catheter care. LPN #1 was not observed to wear a gown during the resident's catheter care. The resident's room was observed to have no PPE supplies near the room or enhanced barrier precaution signage. On 9/05/25 at 9:16 a.m., LPN #1 was observed to perform wound care for Resident #3. LPN #1 and CNA #1 performed hand hygiene and applied gloves to perform wound care to the resident's left buttock. LPN #1 and CNA #1 were not observed to wear a gown while they performed the wound care. On 09/05/25 at 9:29 a.m., CNA #1 was observed to put on gloves and empty Resident #3's catheter bag into a urinal. CNA #1 emptied…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-04-18 · tag F0641 — pattern
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview the facility failed to accurately code minimum data set (MDS)assessments for three (#13, 24, and #84) of 12 sampled resident reviewed for accurate MDS assessments. The facility administrator reported 31 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility's MDS policy, dated 10/08/20, read in part, To provide key information unique to the resident. 1. Resident #13 had diagnoses which included congestive heart failure. A physician's order, dated 02/15/24, documented the resident had been prescribed Lasix [a diuretic medication] one and one half tablets of Lasix 40 mg tablets was to be taken daily for congestive heart failure. An administration record, dated 03/01/24 through 03/31/24, documented the resident was administered Lasix tablets each day on 03/01/24 through 03/28/24. A quarterly MDS assessment, dated 04/01/24, did not document in section N that the resident had been administered a diuretic medication during the seven day look-back period. 2. Resident #24 had diagnoses which include major depressive disorder. A physician's order,…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-04-18 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure residents were free from accident hazards for two (#27 and #7) of four sampled residents. The ADON reported 31 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #27 admitted to the facility with diagnoses of multiple sclerosis, diabetes mellitus, and pressure ulcer of the sacrum. On 04/15/24 at 10:50 a.m., the resident was observed resting in bed with bedrails observed on the resident's bed with a low loss air flow mattress in use. The resident's record did not contain a risk assessment for the use of bedrails with an air flow mattress. 2. Res #7 admitted to the facility with diagnoses of multiple sclerosis, congenital malformation, acquired absence of left leg, and acquired absence of right leg. The resident's record did not contain a risk assessment for the use of bedrails with an air flow mattress. On 04/15/24 at 8:30 a.m., Res #7 was observed in bed. The bed was observed with full bedrails raised on both sides. An air flow mattress was observed on the bed. A motor for an air flow mattress was…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-04-18 · tag F0730 — pattern
    Observe each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to perform annual nurse aid performance reviews. The ADON reported 31 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An employee staff list documented five CNA's who had hire dates greater than one year. On 04/15/24 at 2:00 p.m. the annual nurse aid perform reviews were requested. On 04/17/24 at 1:55 p.m., the assistant administrator stated she could not find the performance reviews.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-18 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develpo/implement a care plan for one (27) of 16 residents review for care plans. The ADON reported 31 residents resided inthe facility. Findings: A care plan, dated 04/01/24, contained no documentation of bedrails. On 04/15/24 at 10:50 a.m., the resident was observed resting in bed with bedrails observed to be in use for both sides of the resident's bed. On 04/16/24 at 1:39 p.m., the ADON reported the bed rails should have been care planned.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-18 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop 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

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview the facility failed to conducted interdisciplinary team [IDT] meetings following quarterly assessments for the purpose of review and revision of the comprehensive care plan for two (#21 and #22) of 12 sampled residents reviewed for care plans. The administrator reported 31 residents resided at the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #21's admission summary documented the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of the resident's medical record did not locate documentation of care plan meetings having occurred for Resident #21 for the period of 04/15/23 through 04/15/24. 2. Resident #22's admission summary documented the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of the resident's medical record did not located documentation of care plan meetings having occurred for Resident #22 for the period of 04/15/23 through 04/15/24. On 04/15/24 at 10:19 a.m., Resident # 22 stated they were not aware what care plan meetings were or if they had attended. On…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-18 · tag F0700 — isolated
    Try different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed prevent the use of bed rails until: a. alternatives to the use of bed rails had been attempted, and b. informed consent had been obtained and documented, and c. an assessment of the resident's ability to safely use a bed rail was conducted for one (#84) of three sampled residents reviewed for accident hazards. The ADON stated seven residents had side rails attached to their beds and in use. Findings: A facility Restraint policy and procedure, dated 06/01/2017, documented resident were to be assessed for their ability to reposition themselves using bed rails and the bed rails were to be checked monthly for safety. The policy and procedure did not document the requirements for using alternative methods to using bed rails prior to their use, assessing the residents for safety prior to the use of bed rails, or obtaining informed consent prior to the use of bed rails. A review of Resident #84's records contained no documentation of the attempted use of alternatives to the use of bed rails, a safety assessment related…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-18 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure 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 ensure a medication/storage closet was locked when left unsupervised. The ADON reported 31 residents resided in the facility. Findings: On 04/15/24 at 8:45 a.m., a medication/storage closet on the north hall was observed to be unlocked and unsupervised. The closet was observed to contain over-the-counter medications and medical supplies. On 04/15/24 at 8:51 a.m., CMA #1 was asked if the medication/storage closet door is supposed to be locked. CMA #1 reported yes.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-04-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to create a water management plan to prevent water borne pathogens. The facility administrator reported 31 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Facility policy and procedures were reviewed. No water management plan to prevent waterborne pathogens was located. On 04/18/24 at 9:59 a.m., the assistant administrator stated they had not heard of the water management plan to prevent waterborne pathogens. At 10:07 a.m., the assistant administrator stated the facility had not created a water management plan as of that time.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-03-09 · tag F0641 — pattern
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to: a. ensure accurate coding of MDS assessments for medication use for two (#5 and #28) of 12 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed, and; b. ensure accurate coding of MDS assessments for diagnoses for two (#5 and #28) of 12 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents documented a facility census of 29 residents. Findings: 1. Resident #5 was admitted with diagnoses which included edema, dementia, and Schizoaffective disorder. Physician Orders for resident #5, dated March 2023, documented the resident was ordered a diuretic and an antianxiety medication for daily use. A Quarterly Assessment for resident #5, dated 03/04/23, had no documentation to show the resident received a diuretic and antianxiety medication for seven out of the seven days look back period. 2. Resident #28 was admitted with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A Quarterly Assessment for resident #28, dated 03/04/23, documented the resident received…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-03-09 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure kitchen sanitation was performed for: ~ sanitary ice machine was maintained ~ clean and free of residue coffee maker ~ clean and free of dust on portable fans ~ clean and free of grease residue on vent hood was maintained The Resident Census and Condition of Residents form documented 28 residents received nourishment from the kitchen. Findings: The facility policy, Dietary Policy and Procedure for Cleaning and Infection Control, read in parts .monitor the cleaning .signed by employee .if soap or chemical cleaners are used be sure they are completely rinsed away .wipe interior and all surface areas . On 03/07/23 at 9:30 a.m., an initial tour of the kitchen was conducted. The dietary manager provided documentation of the cleaning schedule for the ice machine which documented it had been cleaned March 2023. The ice machine was observed to have brown spots of residue on the inside ice guard. The dietary manager was shown the area of brown residue that was easily removed with a paper towel. The coffee maker…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-03-09 · tag F0644 — isolated
    Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
    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 refer a resident to the appropriate state-designated authority for PASARR, who was later identified with a newly related condition, for one (#4) of one resident who was reviewed for PASARR. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents documented the facility had eight residents with behavioral healthcare needs. Findings: Resident #4 was admitted on [DATE]. A level one PASARR, dated 08/26/15, read in parts, .Level one PASRR screen . 2. 0 yes 0 no Diagnosis of a serious mental illness (for example, schizophrenic, paranoid, panic, mood or other severe anxiety or depressive disorder .0. No had been checked. Physician Orders for resident #4, dated March 2023, documented the resident received a diagnosis of major depressive disorder on 12/12/19 and a diagnosis of Schizoaffective disorder on 08/31/20. The clinical record contained no documentation to show resident #4, who was later identified with a possible serious mental disorder or related condition, 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-03-09 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide 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, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received care in accordance with professional standards of practice, by using two-person assist when transferring a resident with a Hoyer lift, for one (#18) of one resident sampled who required a Hoyer lift. The Administrator identified 9 residents who required Hoyer lifts for transfers. Findings: A facility policy titled Policy and Procedure for Hoyer Mechanical Lift, revision date 10/08/20, read in parts, .the purpose for using a mechanical lift is to keep residents free of falls and injuries and to protect skin from bruising and tearing .one-person position resident in center of Hoyer lift and guide resident while second person pushes lift . Resident #18 was admitted with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, anxiety disorder, and hemiplegia. A Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 02/13/23, documented the resident was severly cognitively impaired and required total assistance with transfers. A Care Plan, dated 08/01/22, documented resident #18 was a high fall risk and required a Hoyer…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
Ownership Data Not Available

The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

What families pay in OK

Paying with Medicaid

CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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.

Typical monthly cost in Oklahoma
$7,026/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$7,756/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,150/mo
Assisted living

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 37E024. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-05, 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.

What to do next