Ruth Wilson Hurley Manor
7 North Covington, Coalgate, OK 74538 · Non profit - Other · 75 certified beds · (580) 927-2377 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- 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
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (5/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 5 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 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 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 | 22.8% | 13.6% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.6% | 3.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 6.9% | 1.9% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 7.4% | 2.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.1% | 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 | 5.7% | 4.7% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.3% | 13.7% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 27.8% | 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 | 0.0% | 4.7% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.3% | 17.1% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 17.1% | 17.5% | 17.1% | typical |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.55 | 2.31 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.15 | 2.96 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 75 beds and averages 31.9 residents a day — about 43% occupied, or roughly 43 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 4.61 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.66 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.94 is at or above 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 3.90 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.89 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.76 to 0.41 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 39% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2024-12-06 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain a clean ice machine. The administrator identified 29 residents who received ice from the kitchen. Findings: On 12/03/24 at 10:38 a.m., the DM stated the kitchen staff cleaned the storage chest of the ice machine weekly and removed all the ice and cleaned/sanitized the storage chest of the ice machine monthly. The DM stated the kitchen staff did not clean the mechanical workings of the ice machine. The DM stated there was a company which came and ran sanitizer through the ice machine, but did not know how often the company did so. On 12/06/24 at 2:21 p.m., the internal mechanics of the ice machine was observed to have a moist green and black substance along the edges of the water reservoir, covers, inlets, and tubing. On 12/06/24 at 2:22 p.m., the administrator observed the internal mechanics of the ice machine and stated the ice machine needed to be cleaned.
- Potential for harm · D2024-12-06 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to accurately complete a level l PASARR for one (#20) of one sampled resident reviewed for PASARR. The administrator identified 29 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #20 had diagnoses which included dementia with other behavioral disturbances, delusional disorders, and mood affective disorder. A level l PASARR assessment, dated 01/23/19, documented resident #20 did not have a diagnosis of a serious mental illness. On 12/06/24 at 2:56 p.m., the ADON reviewed the resident's level I PASARR form and stated the question regarding a diagnosis of serious mental illness was answered incorrectly. The ADON stated a level II PASARR referral should have been made to Oklahoma Health Care Authority.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-06 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to care plan a resident's weight loss for one (#9) of one sampled resident whose care plan was reviewed for weight loss. The DON identified three residents with weight loss. Findings: Resident #9 had diagnoses which included dementia. The registered dietician's note, dated 11/19/24, documented the resident had weight loss of 12.5% in the last three months and 11.6% in the last six months. The note documented the resident received Megace, an appetite stimulant, as a physician ordered intervention for weight loss. On 12/06/24 at 4:40 p.m., Resident #9's clinical record was reviewed. There was no documentation weight loss was care planned. On 12/06/24 at 6:00 p.m., the MDS coordinator stated the resident's weight loss should have been care planned.
- Potential for harm · E2023-08-23 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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' assessments were accurate for four (#3, 5, 12 and #18) of 16 sampled residents whose assessments were reviewed for accuracy. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents, dated 08/21/23, documented a census of 36 residents. Findings: 1. Res #3 was admitted with diagnoses which included weakness and fracture of the right femur. On 08/20/23 at 4:00 p.m., Res #3 was observed sitting on the edge of the bed. A 1/8 side rail was up on the left side of bed. On 08/20/23 at 4:00 p.m., Res #3 reported they used the side rail to assist them in getting out of bed at times. The resident reported they had requested the rail a long time ago and the doctor had approved it. The resident reported they didn't feel the side rail restricted their movement. On 08/21/23 at 11:01 a.m., Res #3 was observed ambulating in the hallway with a rolling walker. On 08/22/23 at 2:40 p.m., the MDS coordinator reported they had documented the 1/8 side rails requested by Res #3 for positioning as restraints on the resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-08-23 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure care plans were developed for three (#3, 5, and #18) of three sampled residents who used bed rails and one (#11) of one sampled resident reviewed for falls. The DON identified seven residents who used side rails and 19 residents who had fallen in the last six months. Findings: 1. Res #3 was admitted with diagnoses which included weakness and fracture of the right femur. On 08/20/23 at 4:00 p.m., Res #3 was observed sitting on the edge of the bed. A 1/8 side rail was up on the left side of bed. On 08/20/23 at 4:00 p.m., Res #3 reported they used the side rail to assist them in getting out of bed at times. The resident reported they had requested the rail a long time ago and the doctor had approved it. The resident reported they didn't feel the side rail restricted their movement. On 08/21/23 at 11:01 a.m., Res #3 was observed ambulating in the hallway with a rolling walker. On 08/22/23 at 2:40 p.m., the MDS coordinator reported they had documented the 1/8 side rails requested by Res #3 for positioning…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-23 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was updated for one (#17) of one sampled resident who was reviewed for burns. The DON identified one resident who sustained burns within the last six months. Findings: Res #17 was admitted with diagnoses which included Parkinson's disease. A nurse note, dated 06/18/23 at 2:30 p.m., documented Res #17 sustained burns to their coccyx and thighs after spilling hot coffee on their lap. A Hot Liquids Risk Screening, dated 06/21/23, documented in part, .Hot Liquid Risk Interventions - with any hot beverage resident is to use a cup with a lid . An OSDH 283 form, dated 06/23/23, documented in part, .Part C - Sippy cup to prevent reoccurrence and lid coming off .Resident agreed to use sippy cup with all liquids to prevent spills and injury. Staff instructed to ensure hot liquids are cooled prior to giving to resident . Res #17's care plan did not include interventions to prevent burns from hot liquids. On 08/24/23 at 10:45 a.m., the MDS coordinator reported the care plan should have been updated to include…
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 · F2022-07-21 · tag F0865 — failed to run a quality-improvement (QAPI) program — widespreadHave a plan that describes the process for conducting QAPI and QAA activities.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a QAPI plan. Findings: A QAPI attendance form, dated 03/31/22, documented the IP, DM and AD were the attendees. On 07/22/22 at 1:48 p.m., the IP reported the facility did not have a current QAPI plan. On 07/22/22 at 2:22 p.m., the administrator reported the QAPI plan was not current, the meetings were not regular and the committee was in the process of being re-vamped.
- Potential for harm · F2022-07-21 · tag F0868 — widespreadHave the Quality Assessment and Assurance group have the required members and meet at least quarterly
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to establish and maintain a QAA committee. Findings: A QAPI attendance form, dated 03/31/22, documented the IP, DM and AD were the attendees. On 07/22/22 at 1:48 p.m., the IP reported the facility did not have a current QAPI plan. On 07/22/22 at 2:22 PM the administrator reported the QAPI plan was not current, the meetings were not regular and the committee was in the process of being re-vamped.
- Potential for harm · E2022-07-21 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to provide residents with an advance directive acknowledgement for six (#1, 9, 19, 24, 36, and #190) of eight residents reviewed for advance directives. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents documented 38 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An advance directive acknowledgement was not the paper or electronic health record (EHR) for residents #1, 9, 19, 24, 36, and #190. On 07/20/22 at 10:00 a.m., the BOM reported she was not aware they needed to give the residents an advance directive acknowlgement. She also reported the admission packet only contained the advance directive form.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-07-21 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to review and revise a care plan for two (#24 and #36) of six residents whose care plans were reviewed. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents documented 38 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #24 was admitted with diagnoses which included type 2 diabetes. A care plan dated, 02/16/22, read in parts, . Blood sugars as ordered with sliding scale coverage; report to MD as indicated . The EHR did not include a physician's order for Res #24 to receive sliding scale insulin. On 07/21/22 at 11:37 a.m., the DON reported that Res #24 had not been on sliding scale insulin in a while and it should have been removed from the care plan. Res #36 was admitted to Hospice services on 06/14/21 for a diagnosis of congestive heart failure. A care plan dated, 06/25/21, read in parts, .Hospice aide to provide shower as tolerated . On 07/22/22 at 11:39 a.m., the DON reported that Res #36 had not had a hospice aide in a long time and the care plan should have been updated to reflect that.
- Potential for harm · E2022-07-21 · 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 the physician responded to the pharmacist reviews regarding anti-psychotic medications for two (#9 and #24) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents documented five residents had orders for anti-psychotic medication. Findings: Resident #9 was admitted with diagnoses which included Non-Alzheimer's dementia and dementia with behavioral disturbance. The pharmacist reviews dated, 12/28/21 and 06/20/22, read in parts, Is a dosage reduction attempt possible for any of the following: .Vraylar (an anti-psychotic medication) from 3mg to 1.5mg daily, Olanzapine (an anti-psychotic medication) from 5mg to 2.5 mg daily? The pharmacist recommendations did not contain documented responses from the physician. Resident #24 was admitted with diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbance. The pharmacist reviews dated 11/22/21 and 05/19/22, read in parts, Is a dosage reduction attempt possible for any of the following: .Olanzapine from 2.5mg daily to every…
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 · E2022-07-21 · 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 ensure controlled substances were stored in a permanently affixed compartment in the medication refrigerator for one (New Wing Medication Room) of two medication rooms. The DON reported controlled substances were stored in the refrigerator in one (New Wing Medication Room) of two medication rooms. Findings: On 07/22/22 at 11:10 a.m., a black plastic box on a shelf in the New Wing Medication Room refrigerator was not affixed to the refrigerator. The black plastic box contained two bottles of liquid lorazepam (a controlled substance). On 07/22/22 at 11:15 a.m., LPN #1 reported she was unaware the box should have been permanently affixed. On 07/22/22 at 11:20 a.m., the DON reported the facility had attempted to permanently affix the box without success.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-07-21 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a wound care plan was developed for one (#29) of one resident whose care plan was reviewed. The Matrix for Providers dated, 07/19/22, documented two residents with wounds. Findings: A comprehensive care plan dated, 06/04/22, did not document Res #29's wound to left foot. A history and physical from acute care dated, 06/18/22, read in parts, .left foot stage 3 ulcer . A physician's order, dated 06/27/22, read in parts, .monitor top of left foot for S/S of infection daily. A physician's order, dated 07/12/22, read in part, Cleanse top of left foot with NSS (normal saline solution), pat dry, apply collagen powder to wound bed, cover with super absorbent dressing once daily. On 7/19/22 at 10:25 a.m., and throughout the survey, Res #29 was observed with a dressing to the top of their left foot. On 07/22/22, at 3:30 p.m., the DON reported the wound should have been care planned.
- Potential for harm · D2022-07-21 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure the hospice chart was up to date for one (#36) of one resident who was reviewed for hospice services. The Matrix for Providers dated, 07/19/22, documented three residents were receiving hospice services. Findings: Res #36 was admitted to hospice services on 06/14/21 for a diagnosis of congestive heart failure. The last hospice nursing note in the hospice chart was dated 09/22/21 at 4:58 p.m. On 07/22/22 at 11:39 a.m., the DON reported the last hospice nursing note was from 09/22/21. On 07/22/22 at 2:38 p.m., LPN #1 reported if there were current hospice nursing notes in the chart she would have read them, LPN #1 also stated, I don't even know what the hospice nurse is assessing or finding if they don't tell me.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
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 375312. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-12-06, 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.