Corn Heritage Village and Rehab
106 West Adams, Corn, OK 73024 · Non profit - Church related · 104 certified beds · (580) 343-2295 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $50,622 in federal fines (most recent 2025-11-17)
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 1 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 | 20.5% | 13.6% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.6% | 3.3% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.9% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.5% | 2.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.1% | 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 | 7.8% | 4.7% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.9% | 13.7% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 27.0% | 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 | 4.3% | 4.7% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 22.0% | 17.1% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 25.6% | 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 | 61.5% | 74.1% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 22.5% | 27.3% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 27.1% | 16.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.32 | 2.31 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 5.53 | 2.96 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
42.5% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 41 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.11 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 7% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% 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 | 42.5%CMS range 29.3–57.0 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.2%CMS range 7.5–16.9 | 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 | 6.3%CMS range 2.8–15.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.95 | 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 104 beds and averages 53.5 residents a day — about 51% occupied, or roughly 50 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 4.85 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.26 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.64 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 4.21 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 5.11 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.29 to 0.18 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-11-17 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
On 11/10/25 at 2:33 p.m., the OSDH was notified and verified the existence of an immediate jeopardy situation related to the facility's failure to ensure monitoring and intervention for Resident #3 who was on a routine long-term anticoagulant. This resulted in the resident being admitted to the ICU with an acute subdural hemorrhage after a fall.On 11/10/25 at 3:34 p.m., the administrator and interim executive director were notified of the immediate jeopardy and was provided the immediate jeopardy template. On 11/13/25 at 12:39 p.m., an acceptable plan of removal was approved by the OSDH.The plan of removal read in part,Staff will identify residents on anticoagulants at shift change by notifying oncoming staff at shift change of all residents on anticoagulants starting 11/14/2025 7:00 am at shift change and going to continue for 4 weeks and then reevaluate at that time.Administration will post a roster in the medication room of all residents on anticoagulants.Administration will post a roster in the medication room of all anticoagulant medications.Will adjust EHR resident dashboard…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-11-17 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolatedEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY On 11/10/25 at 2:33 p.m., the OSDH was notified and verified the existence of an immediate jeopardy situation related to the facility's failure to ensure nursing staff were competent to effectively assess, monitor, and intervene for Resident #3 who was on a routine blood thinner and sustained a fall with injury causing an acute subdural hemorrhage resulting in being admitted to ICU.On 11/10/25 at 3:34 p.m., the administrator and interim executive director were notified of the immediate jeopardy and was provided the immediate jeopardy template. On 11/13/25 at 12:39 p.m., an acceptable plan of removal was approved by the Oklahoma State Department of Health. The plan of removal, read in part,Plan of removal: 11/14/25 11:59 p.m.All nursing staff have completed Skills Competency proficiency of change of condition with a focus on high-risk drugs like anticoagulants for nursing staff.DON and ADON have been In-service on training and completing nursing skills competency education for nursing staff by administrator.All…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Actual harm · G2025-11-17 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified of a change in condition for 1 (#3) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for change in condition.The administrator identified 54 residents resided in the facility. Findings:A policy titled Neurological Observation, updated 10/12/17, read in part, A resident that receives any type of head wound or trauma involving the head, a neurologic assessment will be performed for the period of 72 hours. The physician will be notified immediately and with any changes in neurological status.A policy titled Notification of Changes, dated 10/24/24, read in part, All pertinent information will be made available to the provider by the health care team. Team members are educated to identify changes in a resident's status and define changes that require notification .of the resident's physician, to ensure best outcomes of care for the resident. Requirements for notification of .physician: A significant change in the resident's physical,…
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 · D2025-11-17 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were reported to the OSDH no later than 24 hours of the alleged abuse for 2 (#1 and #2) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for abuse.The administrator identified 54 residents resided in the facility.Findings:Findings:On 10/22/25 at 2:45 p.m., during facility tour, Resident #1 was observed to have 1:1 supervision with staff.An undated facility policy titled Reporting Resident Neglect, Mistreatment, Exploitation, Abuse or Misappropriation of a Resident's Property read in part, It is the responsibility of Corn Heritage Village to accept reports of incidents or suspected incidents .from any source. Any alleged violations involving abuse must be reported immediately to the administrator and Director of Nursing. This notification shall apply to any time of day or night. The Administrator or Director of Nursing is responsible for reporting any allegations of abuse to officials in accordance with state law.An initial…
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 · E2024-11-21 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to administer physician ordered medications for one (#14) of five sampled residents reviewed for medications. The administrator reported 52 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Medication Administration and General Guidelines policy, dated 07/10/23, read in part, Medications are administered in accordance with written orders of the attending physician. If a dose seems excessive considering the resident's age and condition, or a medication seems to be unrelated to the resident's current diagnosis or condition, the physician is contacted for clarification prior to the administration of the medication. Resident #14 had diagnoses which included senile degeneration of brain, anxiety disorder, and polyarthritis. Resident #14's physician order, dated 11/06/24, read in part, Give 0.5 mg PLO gel q 4 hours. A drug label for Resident #14, dated 11/06/24, documented, apply 0.5 ml (0.5 mg) to the inside of one wrist and rub in well with the other wrist every four hours. lorazepam (benzodiazepine) 1 mg/1 ml-PLO.…
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 · E2024-11-21 · tag F0881 — failed to use antibiotics responsibly — patternImplement a program that monitors antibiotic use.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to implement an antibiotic stewardship program for three (#17, 39. and #44) of five residents sampled for medication review. The DON identified 52 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #17 had diagnoses which included chronic systolic congestive heart failure, permanent A-Fib, and recurrent depressive disorders. Resident #17's care plan, dated 07/31/24, documented frequently incontinent of bowel and occasional incontinent of urine. A Culture Urine for resident #17, dated 08/17/24, read in part, Culture Colony count > 100,000 CFU/ml Escherichia Coli (Abnormal). Resident #17's physician order, dated 08/19/24, documented to give Macrobid oral capsule 100 mg (Nitrofurantoin), 100 mg by mouth, two times a day for five days, related to urinary tract infection. 2. Resident #39 had diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute kidney disease, and senile degeneration of the brain. Resident #39's care plan, dated 01/02/24, documented the resident was frequently incontinent of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-21 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate 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 facilty failed to ensure new mental illness diagnoses were reported to the OHCA for one (#6) of one sampled resident reviewed for PASARR. The administrator reported 52 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Preadmission Screening and Annual Resident Review policy, revised 06/25/21, read in part, [Name withheld] will refer all level II residents and all residents with newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or related or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or related condition for a level II review upon a significant change in status assessment to the State PASARR representative. Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A level I PASARR screen, dated 08/22/23, documented primary diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and secondary of acute on chronic systolic heart failure. The level I PASARR screen documented no level II screening was required. Resident #6's face sheet documented…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-11-21 · 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to include hospice services on a care plan for one (#9) of one sampled resident reviewed for hospice. The administrator reported 52 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Care Plans policy, dated 10/12/17, read in part, Comprehensive care plans will be revised and updated upon any new changes in a resident's condition within 7 days .Care Plans will address all areas pertinent to providing care to that resident. Resident #9 had diagnoses which included congestive heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A physician order for Resident #9, dated 06/27/24, documented the resident was admitted to hospice with the diagnosis of hypertensive heart disease with heart failure. A comprehensive assessment for Resident #9, dated 10/02/24, documented the resident's cognition was intact. The assessment documented the resident received hospice services. A care plan for Resident #9, dated 10/02/24, did not address hospice or document the resident received hospice services. On 11/20/24 at 12:33 p.m., MDS coordinator #1…
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 · E2024-08-01 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure incontinent care was provided to dependent residents at least every two hours for three (#2, 3, and #4) of three dependent residents observed for receiving incontinent care. The DON identified 61 residents resided in the facility. RN #1 identified 27 residents that were totally dependent on staff for incontinent care. Findings: 1. A 'Functional Abilities & Goals' assessment for Resident #2, dated 05/16/24, documented they had impaired ROM to both upper and both lower extremities, was incontinent of bowel and bladder, and was dependent on staff for all ADL's. 2. A 'Functional Abilities & Goals' assessment for Resident #3, dated 07/02/24, documented they had impaired ROM to both upper and both lower extremities, was incontinent of bowel and bladder, and was dependent on staff for all ADL's. 3. A 'Functional Abilities & Goals' assessment for Resident #4, dated 07/29/24, documented they had impaired ROM to both upper and both lower extremities, was incontinent of bowel and bladder, and was dependent on staff for all…
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 · E2024-08-01 · tag F0802 — failed to prepare enough nourishing food — patternProvide sufficient support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff received training in safe food handling practices for the prevention of foodborne illness for eight (Cook #1, [NAME] #2, [NAME] #3, [NAME] #4, Dietary Aide #1, Dietary Aide #2, Dietary Aide #3, Dietary Aide #4) of nineteen dietary staff. The DON identified 61 residents resided in the facility. All residents received meals prepared in the facility dietary department. Findings: On 08/01/24 at 9:00 a.m., the Administrator was asked for verification of Food Handlers training for all dietary staff. On 08/01/24 at 9:08 a.m., the Administrator submitted a copy of in-service training for eleven of nineteen dietary staff and acknowledged [NAME] #1, [NAME] #2, [NAME] #3, [NAME] #4, Dietary Aide #1, Dietary Aide #2, Dietary Aide #3, and Dietary Aide #4 had not received the required training.
- Potential for harm · E2022-09-22 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to adhere to the facility's policy and procedure to label and date oxygen tubing for three (#49, 48, and #71) of three residents sampled for oxygen therapy. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents, report, dated 09/19/22, documented 80 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The Oxygen System Change Out Policy, revised on 10/11/17, read in parts, .It is the policy of Corn Heritage Village and Rehab that the oxygen setups including the nasal cannula, any extension tubing, and humidifier bottle will be changed out every 2 weeks for infection control purposes. Each new oxygen set will be labeled with the date of change and the nurses initials . 1. Resident #49 was admitted to the facility with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Physician Orders, dated 07/30/20, read in parts, . may have oxygen 2 L. Do NOT increase oxygen without discussing with PCP first. as needed for shortness of breath related to DYSPNEA [Shortness of breath] .May have NC PRN for SHOB. May keep at bedside. Do NOT…
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 · E2022-09-22 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — patternMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
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 emergency call lights were accessible and/or in working order for eight (#1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and #54) of eight residents reviewed for an emergency call light system. The Administrator reported 80 residents resided in the facility. Findings: On 09/19/22 at 10:00 a.m., a tour of the facility was conducted. Resident bathrooms on the E Unit, for residents #1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, and #11, were observed to have missing pull cords, short pull cords, or cords wrapped around the hand bar. On 09/19/22 at 10:10 a.m., resident #54 reported utilizing the bathroom during the daytime. The resident's bathroom call light was observed to be missing a cord. The maintenance log was reviewed and documented no reported issues with bathroom call light repairs. The facility reported no policy and procedure related to the call light system. On 09/22/22 at 10:14 a.m., an interview with the DON was conducted. She was asked to review the September 2022 work log for maintenance issues. The DON stated there had been no reports of…
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
$50,622 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $50,622 — penalty dated 2025-11-17
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2026-01-01 for 34 days
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BARTEL, HOWARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 08/01/2020 |
| GOSSEN, BART | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| PETERS, JONATHAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/30/2019 |
| RAJI, SHERIFFDEEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/20/2014 |
| RUSSELL, MARCI | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2024 |
| REDCAY, CLAIR | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/27/2021 |
| BOYD, SARAH | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2025 |
| BROWN, WILLIAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2025 |
| KING, BETTINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2025 |
| MCDONALD, AARON | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/31/2025 |
| MORGAN, MELISSA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2025 |
| PEEK, RACHEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2025 |
| AARON, MICHAEL | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2018 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 13 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
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.
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 2024. 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, FY2024). 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 375409. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-11-21, 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.