Bradford Village Healthcare Center
906 North Blvd, Edmond, OK 73034 · For profit - Partnership · 122 certified beds · (405) 341-0810 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- 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 (4/5)
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating 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 | 3.4% | 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 | 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 | 1.4% | 2.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 3.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 10.2% | 4.7% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 6.4% | 13.7% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 8.0% | 25.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.4% | 4.7% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 7.5% | 17.1% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 12.9% | 17.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.5% | 1.8% | 1.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.1% | 74.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.4% | 27.3% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 16.8% | 16.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.87 | 2.31 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.30 | 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.
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.
51.0% 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 134 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 56.2% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 73 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.65 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 90% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 18% 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 | 51.0%CMS range 44.4–58.4 | 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 | 9.9%CMS range 6.8–13.3 | 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 | 56.2% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 50.7% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 56.2% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 99.4% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 1.7% | 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 | 6.6%CMS range 3.7–10.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.96 | 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 122 beds and averages 92.3 residents a day — about 76% occupied, or roughly 30 beds typically open. It usually has some room. 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 4.01 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.51 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.38 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.47 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.23 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.52 to 0.50 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 40% 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-02-12 · 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: a. ensure expired medications were removed from circulation for three (#8, 46, and #56) of 10 sampled residents reviewed with controlled medications; and b. medications were administered as ordered for one (#24) of five sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The administrator identified 81 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The MEDICATION ADMINISTRATION-GENERAL GUIDELINES policy, dated 01/2022, read in part, Medications are administered as prescribed in accordance with good nursing principles and practices and only by persons legally authorized to do so. 1. Resident #8 had diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A Physician Order, dated 05/18/24, documented hydrocodone-acetaminophen (an opioid) tablet 5-325 mg give one tablet by mouth every four hours as needed for pain. An Individual Resident's Narcotics Record, dated 05/18/24, documented the last dose of hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg was administered to Resident #8 on January 25th. The remaining count…
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 · D2025-02-12 · 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
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the physician when a resident's blood pressure was abnormal for one (#24) of five sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medication. The administrator identified 81 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #24 had a diagnosis of hypertension. A physician's order, dated 12/01/22, documented valsartan (an antihypertensive) 160 mg, give one tablet by mouth one time a day for hypertension. A physician's order, dated 05/10/23, documented amlodipine besylate (an antihypertensive) 5 mg, give one tablet by mouth one time a day for hypertension. A physician's order, dated 07/24/24, documented to obtain blood pressure and heart rate one time a day for monitoring if systolic blood pressure 170 or greater refer to as needed hydralazine (vasodilator) order. The January 2025 Medication Admin Audit Report documented amlodipine besylate was initialed as given on: a. 01/28/25 at 8:01 a.m., b. 01/30/25 at 7:52 a.m., and c. 01/31/25 at 8:10 a.m. The January 2025 Medication Admin Audit Report documented the valsartan…
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 · D2025-02-12 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed within the required timeframe for one (#170) of 18 sampled residents reviewed for care plans. The administrator identified 81 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #170 admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #170's admission Resident Assessment was dated 01/22/25. There was no comprehensive care plan located in Resident #170's clinical record. On 02/11/25 at 9:45 a.m., the case manager stated they were responsible for MDS resident assessments and care plans for the skilled residents. On 02/11/25 at 9:48 a.m., the case manager stated they put in basic care plans when residents initially admitted to the facility. They stated they would then complete the admission assessment. They stated the comprehensive care plan should be completed no more than 21 days after admission. On 02/11/25 at 9:50 a.m., the case manager stated Resident #170 admitted on [DATE]. They stated the care plan was 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 · Ecited before2023-11-30 · 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 ensure food items were properly sealed, dated, and labeled during one of one kitchen observations. The DON identified 96 residents resided in the facility and received services from the kitchen. Findings: The facility's Dining Services Policies and Procedures - Food Storage policy, revised 04/30/09, read in part, .Food items will be stored, thawed, and prepared in accordance with approved sanitary practices .Fresh Fruits .Rotate so that oldest produce is used first .Fresh vegetables are to be checked and sorted for ripeness . On 11/27/23 at 1:24 p.m., the following items were observed in the walk in the freezer during the initial kitchen tour: a. an opened clear bag of mixed frozen vegetables in a carton not labeled or dated, b. frozen broccoli in a clear bag not properly sealed, and c. cheese pizza in a clear bag not properly sealed. On 11/27/23 at 1:36 p.m., a white bulk storage bin with a clear transparent lid containing a white powder had no label or date. On 11/27/23 at 1:42 p.m., the CDM stated the white…
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 · E2023-11-30 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to report a communicable disease to the OSDH for four (#19, 47, 48, and #146) of four residents reviewed for COVID-19. The DON identified 96 residents resided in the facility. Four residents were positive for COVID-19 in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #146 had diagnoses which included cerebral palsy and diabetes. A nursing note, dated 11/18/23, documented Resident #146 tested positive for COVID-19. 2. Resident #47 had diagnoses which included depression and transient ischemic attack. A nursing note, dated 11/23/23, documented Resident #47 tested positive for COVID-19. 3. Resident #19 had diagnoses which included acute kidney failure and COPD. A nursing note, dated 11/24/23, documented Resident #19 tested positive for COVID-19. 4. Resident #48 had diagnoses which included asthma and diabetes. A nursing note, dated 11/24/23, documented Resident #48 tested positive for COVID-19. On 11/30/23 at 9:53 a.m., state reportable incidents were reviewed and there was no documentation Resident #19, 47, 48, and #146's positive…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-11-30 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident assessments were accurate for one (#94) of 20 sampled residents reviewed for resident assessments. The DON identified 96 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #94 had diagnoses which included COPD and hypertension. A Discharge Summary, dated 10/18/23, documented Resident #94 was discharged home with their spouse. It documented Resident #94 was able to walk using a walker and put themselves in a car. Resident #94's discharge resident assessment, dated 10/18/23, documented Resident #94 had a planned discharge to a short-term general hospital (acute hospital). On 11/29/23 at 2:34 p.m., the CM stated Resident #94's discharge resident assessment documented the resident was discharged to an acute hospital. They stated Resident #94's discharge summary documented the resident was discharged home. The CM stated it could have been an error.
- Potential for harm · F2023-08-22 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — widespreadEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
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 the menu was followed for one of one meal service observed. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 08/21/23, documented 93 residents resided in the facility. The DON identified 93 residents received services from the kitchen. Findings: A Dietary Spreadsheet, dated 03/14/23, documented the lunch service was to contain Dsrt of Day. On 08/21/23 at 12:05 p.m., Resident #14 was observed in the dining room eating a salad. There was no observation a dessert had been provided. On 08/21/23 at 12:07 p.m., Resident #5 was observed in the dining room eating a salad. There was no observation a dessert had been provided. On 08/21/23 at 12:22 p.m., Resident #14 was asked how their lunch was. They stated it was good but they did not get any dessert. They stated it was normal not to be served any dessert. On 08/21/23 at 12:29 p.m., Resident #11 stated they weren't offered a dessert at the lunch meal. On 08/21/23 at 12:30 p.m., Resident #5 stated they didn't receive a dessert at the lunch meal.…
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 · E2022-12-01 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
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 allegations related to verbal and physical abuse was reported accurately and thoroughly investigated for two (#12 and #184) of three sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The Residents Census and Conditions, report, dated 11/27/22, documented 85 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility's Abuse, policy, revised 09/16/16, read in part, .A member of the administrative staff will then conduct a thorough investigation of the incident/allegation to obtain information about the incident . Resident #12 had diagnosis of diabetes mellitus type two, chronic kidney disease, and gout. Resident #12's quarterly assessment, documented the resident's cognition was intact, and they required extensive to total assistance with bed mobility, transfers, hygiene, and toileting. It documented the resident had impaired range of motion to bilateral lower extremities and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. On 11/27/22 at 11:32 a.m., Resident #12 stated CNA #2 was terrible. Resident #12 stated the CNA screamed at 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 · Ecited before2022-12-01 · 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administrated as ordered for two (#26 and #134) of five sampled residents reviewed for medications. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 11/27/22, documented 85 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility's Preparation For Medication Administration policy, read in part, .The resident is always observed after administration to ensure that the dose was completely ingested . 1. Resident #26 had diagnosis which included chronic pain syndrome, hypertension, and chronic combined systolic and diastolic heart failure. A Resident Assessment, dated 10/03/22, documented the resident's cognition was intact. On 11/28/22 at 8:22 a.m., Resident #26 was observed laying in bed with a blanket covering them. A large white pill was observed on the resident's upper abdomen area. Five pills were observed on the floor. Resident #26 was observed to sit up on the side of the bed and the large white pill was still in the blanket. On 11/28/22 at 8:30 a.m., LPN #1 was asked…
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 before2022-12-01 · 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 record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained clean and in good repair, and food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The DON identified 85 residents who received food from the kitchen. Findings: A Food Storage policy, revised 04/30/09, read in part, .Label and date all storage containers. Rotate stock. Use the first in, first out method . On 11/27/22 at 9:41 a.m., a tour of the kitchen was conducted. The following observations were made: a. filters on the back of four ovens, and on one oven motor had visible debris, b. undated and expired bread was observed on a rack in the kitchen, and c. the steam cart's splash guard was soiled and cracked. On 11/27/22 at 10:29 a.m., the DM was asked how long they kept bread after it had been opened. They stated for three days. They were asked when the bread had been received. They stated last week. The DM was asked how was the bread dated. They stated, the bread was not dated. They stated the bakery would replace the supply of bread weekly.…
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 · D2022-12-01 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor 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 record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to provide a clean homelike environment for one (hall 50 shower) of five shower rooms observed for homelike environment. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 11/27/22, documented 85 residents resided in the facility. The Administrator identified five shower rooms. Findings: Completed Work Orders list, dated 11/01/22 through 11/29/22, contained no documentation regarding the hall 500 shower room. On 11/28/22 at 7:37 a.m., the hall 500 shower room was observed to have brown/black substance covered in a cloudy coating along edge of floor/wall near the whirlpool tub. There were two hoses observed behind the whirlpool tub that are connected to the tub from the wall valve for water source. The hose on the left side was white in color with areas of a black substance covering parts of it. The hose on the right with the yellow handle at the valve was also white in color with the majority of it covered in a black substance. The hose with the yellow handle was observed dripping at the water…
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 · D2022-12-01 · 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
Based on record review, and interview, the facility failed to have an adequate system in place to ensure physician order to receive therapy services were followed for one (#60) of 24 sampled residents reviewed for physician orders. The Resident Census and Conditions report, dated 11/27/22, documented 85 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #60 had diagnosis which included COPD, unilateral osteoarthritis right knee, fibromyalgia, scoliosis, bilateral artificial hips, chronic pain, and bed confinement status. Resident #60's quarterly assessment, dated 10/01/22, documented the resident's cognition was intact, and they required extensive to total assistance of one to two persons for mobility ADLs. It documented the resident had no ROM impairment. On 11/27/22 at 2:21 p.m., Resident #60 stated they want to be able to get therapy and walk. Resident #60's Physician Progress Note, dated 09/07/22, read in part, .Orders .po/Ot [sic] evaluation and treatment for generalized weakness and debility, pt requires strengthening, back exercises . Resident #60's Physician's Order,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to BRIDGES HEALTH — 33 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 3.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 3.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 3.0 | ≈ chain avg |
The other 32 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.6★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BRIDGES EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/31/2020 |
| BOKF,NA | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 03/01/2018 |
| KENNETH D. GREINER III REVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER SECURITY INTEREST | — | since 12/31/2020 |
| DIMOND, MICHAEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | — | since 06/19/2017 |
| COBLE, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/20/2020 |
| LONG, DENNIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/31/2020 |
| BRIDGES ESOP, INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/31/2020 |
| CHATHAM, ASTRID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 07/27/2020 |
| DEROIN, KRISTY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/31/2020 |
| DUNCAN, ROBERT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/02/2022 |
| GREATBANC TRUST COMPANY | Organization | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 12/31/2020 |
| BRADFORD REAL ESTATE LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2018 |
| CLARITY PROPERTIES LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2018 |
| RENEW PROPERTIES, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/01/2018 |
| GRIFFIN, WILLIAM | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/31/2020 |
| SHEIKH, SAQIB | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/01/2024 |
| WOOD, JOSHUA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 12/31/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 24 rows in the source record cover these 17 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
8 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $979K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OK
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Oklahoma Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 375498. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-02-12, 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.