Rolling Hills Care Center
801 North 193 East Avenue, Catoosa, OK 74015 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 126 certified beds · (918) 266-5500 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- 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
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0569)
- nursing-staff turnover (58%) 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 | 4 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 | 5.2% | 13.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 3.3% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.5% | 1.9% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.5% | 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 | 3.2% | 4.7% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.2% | 13.7% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 31.6% | 25.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.7% | 4.7% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.4% | 17.1% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 20.3% | 17.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.8% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 53.8% | 74.1% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 33.2% | 27.3% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.0% | 16.6% | 12.0% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.19 | 2.31 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.92 | 2.96 | 1.80 | typical |
* 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.24 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 31% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.1%CMS range 7.0–17.9 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality 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 | 0.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.17 | 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 126 beds and averages 52.5 residents a day — about 42% 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 3.27 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.24 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.13 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 3.27 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.28 on weekdays — about the same on weekends as weekdays. RN hours go from 0.27 to 0.17 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 58% 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-08 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 medication was administered according to physician orders for 1 (#1) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for medication administration. The administrator identified 55 residents resided in the facility. A quarterly assessment for Resident #1, dated 03/27/26, showed the resident was severely cognitively impaired for daily decision making with a brief interview for mental status score of 0. An admission record for Resident #1, dated 04/18/26, showed the resident had diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease, dementia, hypertension, and depression. A physician order for Resident #1, dated 05/14/26, read in part, Risperdal oral tablet 1mg. Give one tablet by mouth two times a day. A physician order for Resident #1, dated 05/14/26, read in part, metoprolol succinate extended-release oral tablet 24-hour 50 mg. Give one tablet by mouth one time a day. On 06/02/26 at 11:13 a.m., CMA #2 stated they did not crush medications for Resident #1 because they did not have an order to crush the medications. On 06/02/26 at 11:17 a.m.,…
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 · E2025-12-09 · 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 (treatment cart #1) of 3 treatment carts observed were locked.The DON reported 50 residents resided in the facility.On 12/02/25 at 10:57 a.m., treatment cart #1 was observed to be South of the nurse's station, unlocked and unattended. On 12/02/25 at 10:58 a.m., LPN #1 was observed sitting on the North side of the nurse's station with their back to treatment cart #1. The cart was observed to be unlocked and unattended. On 12/02/25 at 3:03 p.m., treatment cart #1 was observed to be unlocked and unattended on the South side of the nurse's station. On 12/02/25 at 3:04 p.m., LPN #2 was observed to walk out the of the storage closet on Hall A, toward treatment cart #1 located on the South side of the nurse's station. Treatment cart #1 was observed to be unlocked and unattended. On 12/02/25 at 3:06 p.m., RN #1 was observed to stand in room A1 on Hall A. Treatment cart #1 was observed to be unlocked and unattended. On 12/08/25 at 12:51 p.m., treatment cart #1 was observed to be unlocked and unattended…
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 · D2025-12-09 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure 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 ensure assessments were accurate for 1 (#26) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for indwelling urinary catheters.LPN #1 identified four residents had indwelling urinary catheters.Findings: Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure assessments were accurate for 1 (#26) of 2 sampled residents who were reviewed for indwelling urinary catheters. LPN #1 identified four residents who had indwelling urinary catheters. Findings: On 12/03/25 at 9:38 a.m., Resident #26 was observed in their room. An indwelling urinary catheter bag was observed to hang from their chair. On 12/09/25 at 11:30 a.m., LPN #1 and CNA #1 were observed to provide care to the resident's suprapubic catheter. A policy titled, MDS Assessment Coordinator, dated November 2019, read in part, Each individual who completes a portion of the assessment [MDS] must certify the accuracy of that portion of the assessment by: a. Dating and signing the assessment [MDS]; and b. Identifying each section completed. A physician order, dated 08/02/25,…
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 · E2024-05-09 · tag F0569 — patternNotify each resident of certain balances and convey resident funds upon discharge, eviction, or death.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to close out trust accounts and convey funds within 30 days for three (#115, #116, and #18) of three residents reviewed for open trust accounts and had been discharged from the facility over 30 days. The Business Office Director identified five residents who no longer resided in the facilty and trust accounts were not closed out within 30 days. Findings: 1. Resident #115 discharge summary documented the resident had been discharged from the facility on 10/11/23. Resident #115 trust account ledgers, dated 05/07/23, documented the resident had an open trust account balance of $$3,577.07. 2. Resident #116 discharge summary documented the resident had been discharged from the facility on 08/02/23. Resident #116 trust account ledgers, dated 05/07/23, documented the resident had an open trust account balance of $2,617.85. 3. Resident #118 discharge summary documented the resident had been discharged from the facility on 07/14/23. Resident #118 trust account ledgers, dated 05/07/23, documented the resident had an open trust account…
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 · E2024-05-09 · tag F0582 — patternGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
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 residents who received medicaid and had money in the trust account were notified of balances within $200 of the social security resource limit of $2,000 for three (#9, #13 and #45) of three sampled residents reviewed for trust account balances. The business office manager identified 33 residents who had a payer source as medicaid and had money in the resident trust account. Findings: An undated Accounting of Resident Funds policy, read in part, .a representative of the business office informs the resident if the balance in personal funds account reached $200 less than the .resource limit . 1. Resident #9 trust account ledger, documented they had a current balance of $2,063.56 on 05/07/24. The admission summary documented Resident #9 had a payer source of medicaid. 2. Resident #13 trust account ledger,documented they had a current balance of $2,650.20 on 05/07/24. The admission summary documented Resident #13 had a payer source of medicaid. 3. Resident #45 trust account ledger, dated 05/07/24, had a current balance…
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 · E2024-05-09 · tag F0655 — patternCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure summaries of the admission care plan was provided to residents for three (#35, #51 and #114) of three newly admitted residents reviewed for base line care plans. The facility form 802 matrix identified four residents who had been admitted to the facility in the past 30 days. Findings: 1. Resident #35 admission summary documented they were admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #35 base line care plan was completed on 02/22/24. There was no documentation on the base line care plan or in the clinical record to indicate Resident #35 received a summary of their care plan. 2. Resident #51 admission summary documented they were admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #51 base line care plan was completed on 02/21/24 There was no documentation on the base line care plan or in the clinical record to indicate Resident #51 received a summary of their care plan. 3. Resident #114 admission summary documented they were admitted to the facility 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-09 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
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 document on a preadmission screening and resident review a mental health illness for one (#51) of one resident reviewed for the need of a level two screening. The director of nursing identified seven residents who had an active diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Findings: Resident #51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with an active diagnosis of bipolar disorder, a mental health illness. The admission base line care plan, dated 02/22/24, documented Resident #51 received an antidepressant medication to treat bipolar disorder. An admission assessment, dated 02/28/24, documented the resident had an active diagnosis of bipolar disorder. A level one preadmission screening and resident review, dated 02/27/24, documented the resident had a diagnosis of bipolar. The assessment question two under level was checked as no to indicate Resident #51 did not have a mental health illness. On 05/09/24 at 8:50 a.m., the assistant director of nursing stated Resident #51…
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 · E2023-03-30 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a clean and safe environment for two (#1 and #145) of 16 residents who resided on hall E in the facility. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 03/29/23, documented 45 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Cleaning and Disinfecting of Residents' Rooms policy, revision date August 2013, documented .The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for cleaning and disinfecting residents' rooms . Walls, blinds, and window curtains in resident areas will be cleaned when these surfaces are visibly contaminated or soiled . 1. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included dementia and anxiety disorder. A Care Plan, dated 04/19/18, documented the resident was at risk for incontinence. A Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 01/07/23, documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance with toileting. The assessment documented the resident was always incontinent. 2. Resident #145 had diagnoses dementia and anxiety disorder. A Care Plan, dated 03/11/23,…
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 · E2023-03-30 · 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 record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to obtain and follow the physician's order for Tubigrip stockings for one (#29) of one sampled resident reviewed for Tubigrip stockings. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 03/27/23, identified 45 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: A policy, Telephone Orders, dated February 2014, read in parts, .Verbal telephone orders may only be received by licensed personnel (e.g., RN, LPN/LVN, pharmacist, physician, etc.) .The entry must contain the instructions from the physician, date, time, and the signature and title of the person transcribing the information . A Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 02/10/23, documented the resident was cognitively intact and required extensive two person assist with bed mobility, transfers, and dressing. A Plan of Care, dated 02/11/23, read in parts, .Infection: I have an infection of the bone Osteomyelitis (left knee), I will remain free from discomfort, complications, or s/s related to my infection through the review date, administer medications…
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 · D2023-03-30 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 provide a privacy curtain for one (#145) of 12 sampled residents who required a privacy curtain. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 03/29/23, documented 45 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #145 had diagnoses of dementia and anxiety disorder. A Care Plan, dated 03/11/23, documented the resident was at risk for incontinence. An admission MDS Assessment, dated 03/18/23, documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment and required supervision with toileting. On 03/27/23 at 1:05 p.m., resident #145's room was observed to have only one privacy curtain for two residents who resided in the room. On 03/28/23 at 10:55 a.m., CNA #1 reported two curtains were to be hung in a room with two residents to provide privacy. The CNA observed resident #145's room and stated there should have been two privacy curtains in the room. The CNA stated she had not noticed the missing curtain and had not reported it to maintenance. On 03/28/23 at 11:02 a.m., LPN #1 reported there…
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 · D2023-03-30 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 maintain the kitchen with professional standards to ensure a clean, sanitary environment. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 03/27/23, identified 44 residents who received nutrition from the facility's kitchen and one resident received enteral nutrition. Findings: A Cooks Cleaning List, dated 3/20/23 through 03/26/23, documented cleaning was to be performed on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. This list did not include cleaning for air conditioning vents or the dishwasher area. On 03/28/23 at 11:13 a.m., a kitchen tour was conducted. A six-foot area of wet towels was observed on the floor along the wall behind the dishwashing machine. Dietary aide #1 was asked about the towels underneath the dishwasher. The aide removed several wet towels with black spots on them that were on the floor tucked in behind the dishwasher. The area behind the dish machine was approximately a six- foot area along the back of the wall with a black scum-like substance extending up the wall tiles…
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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CONHOLD — 5 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 4.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 4.0 | ≈ chain avg |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.0★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SULLIVAN, JAMES | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 06/08/2010 |
| CONHOLD OF CATOOSA LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 05/28/2009 |
| ALLRED, AMY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/14/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 4 rows in the source record cover these 3 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner 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 80% 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 $566K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 12% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
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 375241. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-09, 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.