Burford Manor
505 South 7Th Street, Davis, OK 73030 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 73 certified beds · (580) 369-2653 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jul 2025
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $10,358 in federal fines (most recent 2024-07-16)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 fell from 3 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 | 11.0% | 13.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.4% | 3.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.1% | 1.9% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 2.3% | 2.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.6% | 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 | 4.5% | 4.7% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 9.0% | 13.7% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 18.8% | 25.7% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.7% | 94.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.2% | 4.7% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 7.7% | 17.1% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 30.2% | 17.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 5.3% | 1.8% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 85.7% | 74.1% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 33.7% | 27.3% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 19.3% | 16.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.80 | 2.31 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 4.86 | 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.
47.9% 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 27 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.17 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 15% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 48% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 47.9%CMS range 28.8–67.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 13.7%CMS range 9.2–19.7 | 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 | 97.1% | 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 | 2.9% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 2.9% | 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 | 12.9%CMS range 8.2–19.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.60 | 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 73 beds and averages 46.9 residents a day — about 64% occupied, or roughly 26 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 3.80 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.37 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.52 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 3.00 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.13 on weekdays — 27% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.45 to 0.15 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 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-07-03 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY On 07/02/25 at 2:10 p.m., the OSDH was notified and verified the existence of an IJ situation related to the facility's failure to provide supervision and interventions to prevent elopement from the facility. Resident #1 had a history of eloping and left the facility unattended. Resident #1 crossed a busy, four-lane street and was located on the side of a highway approximately one mile from the facility. On 07/02/25 at 5:10 p.m., the DON was notified of the IJ and provided the IJ template. On 07/03/25 at 11:55 a.m., an acceptable plan of removal was approved by the OSDH. The plan of removal, read in part, [NAME] Manor, 7-2-25, Plan of RemovalResident [Resident #1] not currently in the building. Currently 46 residents in the facility. Nurses have completed wandering assessments on all 46 residents in house and have identified no additional wander risks. Administrator/Owner [name deleted] in-serviced [name deleted] RN of facility elopement policy and procedures, reviewed all safety measures in place relating to…
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 · D2025-07-03 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to protect a resident from physical and verbal abuse by a staff member for 1 (#3) of 3 residents sampled for abuse. The director of nursing reported 46 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Preventing Resident Abuse policy, dated February 2014, read in part, Our facility will not condone any form of resident abuse and will continually monitor our facility's policies, procedures, training programs, systems, etc., to assist in preventing resident abuse.The facility's goal is to achieve and maintain an abuse-free environment.Our abuse prevention/intervention program includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following: .b. Allowing staff to express frustration with their job, or in working with difficult residents.f. Helping staff to deal appropriately with stress and emotions. An Oklahoma State Department of Health incident form 283, dated 03/04/25, showed the DON was notified by staff LPN #1 was becoming increasingly aggravated with Resident #3 due to the resident constantly trying to get up from…
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 · E2024-11-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to use enhanced barrier precautions for two (#13 and #25) of two sampled residents identified with the need for enhanced barrier precautions. Findings: The DON identified nine residents with the need for enhanced barrier precautions. A Multidrug-Resistant Organisms policy, read in part, .Appropriate precautions will be taken when caring for individuals known or suspected to have infection with a multi-drug resistant organism .Note: Infection means that the organism is present and is causing illness. Colonization means that the organism is present in or on the body but it is not causing illness . A Personal Protective Equipment policy, read in part, .Personal protective equipment appropriate to specific task requirements is available at all times .All tasks do not involve the same type or degree of risk, and therefore will not all require the same kind or extent of protection . 1. Resident #13 had diagnoses which included Alzheimer's, depression, and high blood pressure. Resident #13's plan of care, dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · F2024-07-16 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — widespreadHonor 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 maintain housekeeping and maintenance services to maintain a sanitary and safe environment for 47 of 47 residents who reside in the facility. Census: 47 Findings: On 07/16/24 at 8:40 a.m., maintenance was asked about the holes in the wood flooring located on the South Hall. They reported they could fill the holes with something, but it was the foundation. Maintenance was asked about the black areas that outline the base in the shower on the East/West Hall. They reported it was soap/grime around the base of shower. They reported they would caulk it every three months or so. They reported the North Hall shower was the same way and they were looking for contractors to replace that tile, because of the black/scum around the base of the shower. On 07/16/24 at 11:45 a.m., DON reported there were holes in the wood flooring on the South Hall and they were going to get that fixed. The East/West Hall observed with a black colored area at the base of the shower. They reported they were looking to hire a contractor to repair all the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-07-16 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — patternImmediately 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
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the resident's representative of a change of condition for one (#2) of three sampled residents reviewed for notifications related to changes of condition. The DON reported 47 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Change in a Resident's Condition or Status policy, dated 09/01/23, read in part Our facility shall promptly notify the resident, his or her attending physician, and representative of changes in the resident's medical/mental conditions and/or status .Unless otherwise instructed by the resident, the nurse supervisor will notify the resident's family or representative when: The resident is involved in any accident or incident that results in an injury; There is a significant change in the resident's physical, mental or psychosocial status; and/or it is necessary to transfer the resident to a hospital/treatment center . Resident #2 had diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease and dysphagia. A nurse's notes, dated 11/27/23, documented resident #2 had a laceration to side of head and was sent to the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-08-17 · 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 provide residents with beneficiary notices for three (#155, 156, and #157) of three sampled residents reviewed for beneficiary notices. The facility identified six residents discharged from Medicare covered part A stay with benefit days remaining in the previous six months. Findings: SNF Beneficiary Protection Notification Review forms, for resident #155, 156, and #157, documented the skilled nursing facility advanced beneficiary notice (SNF ABN, Form CMS-10055) form was not provided to residents and/or their representative. On 08/16/23 at 10:30 a.m., the BOM was interviewed regarding the facility policy for providing skilled residents with notice of Medicare non-coverage. The BOM reported she was not aware of a policy and was not familiar with any particular form used, but would check with the corporate office and other staff members. On 08/17/23 at 9:53 a.m., the BOM reviewed the SNF ABN Form (CMS-10055) and reported she had never used this form. She stated she did give the same information to the resident and/or their…
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 · E2023-08-17 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen floor and ice machine equipment. The facility failed to: a. maintain a floor which could be sanitized and cleaned appropriately, b. maintain the ice machine in a sanitary manner, and; c. ensure a covered container for trash was available. The Administrator reported all 52 residents were served foods and beverages from the kitchen. Findings: A kitchen Sanitization policy read in part, .the food service area shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner .ice machines and ice storage containers will be drained, cleaned and sanitized . kitchen and dining room surfaces .shall be cleaned on a regular schedule and frequently enough to prevent accumulation of grime [sic] . On 08/14/23 at 9:59 a.m., a tour of the kitchen was conducted. The kitchen floor was observed to be a concrete base with black and dark gray residue build-up in areas resulting in an uneven surface. A concentrated build-up of residue was observed under the hand sink, three compartment sink, and dishwasher…
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 before2021-12-02 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide supervision to prevent an elopement for one (#23) of two residents reviewed for elopement risk. The director of nurses reported three residents wandered throughout the facility and were at risk for elopement. Findings: Resident #23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebrovascular disease, cognitive deficits, dementia, delirium, and mood disorder. An admission assessment, dated 10/03/21, documented the resident was severely impaired with cognition and exhibited wandering behaviors daily. A care plan, dated 10/09/21, documented the resident wandered and was at risk for elopement. The care plan documented the staff was to check the residents whereabouts every 30 minutes. The care plan documented for the staff to provide one on one as needed throughout the day. The care plan documented the resident would exit seek and go out unlocked doors. The care plan documented the resident would walk around…
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 · E2021-12-02 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide sufficient staff to ensure call lights were answered in a timely manner. The administrator reported 47 residents lived in the facility. Findings: Resident council meeting minutes, dated November 2021, documented residents complained call lights were not being answered in a timely manner. On 11/29/21 at 10:13 a.m., resident #44 reported it took a long time for his call light to be answered. On 11/29/21 at 10:24 a.m., resident #14 reported it took too long for call light to be answered. On 11/29/21 at 10:50 a.m., resident #4 reported it took awhile for call light to be answered. On 11/30/21 at 10:14 a.m., resident #19's representative reported there was still not enough staff but it was getting better. The representative reported the resident was not checked for 3 to 5 hours at times unless she turned her call light on. On 12/02/21 at 9:15 a.m. CMA #1 reported there was not enough staff to meet the residents needs. On 12/02/21 at 9:20 a.m., CNA #2 reported there was not enough staff. On 12/02/21 at 9:25 a.m., CNA #3…
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 · D2021-12-02 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to complete a comprehensive care plan for one (#38) of 19 residents reviewed. The administrator reported 47 residents lived in the facility. Findings: Resident #38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included depression, Alzheimer's disease, congestive heart failure, and hypertension. An admission assessment, dated 11/03/21, documented the resident was moderately impaired with cognition, exhibited no depression or behaviors. The assessment documented the resident required extensive assistance with activities of daily living. The assessment documented the resident received an anti-psychotic, an anti-depressant, a diuretic, and an opioid for seven days of the look back period. The assessment documented the resident required oxygen therapy. The clinical record contained no comprehensive care plan. On 11/30/21 at 9:31 a.m., the resident was observed sitting up in her recliner. On 12/01/21 at 9:04 a.m., the minimum data set…
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.
“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
$10,358 in federal fines across 1 penalty. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $10,358 — penalty dated 2024-07-16
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2024-08-08 for 8 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAVES, WILLIAM | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 09/03/2007 |
| DAVES, CASEY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/01/2017 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 3 rows in the source record cover these 2 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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.
This home reported $585K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 11% 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 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 375325. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-11-01, 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.