Elk City Nursing And Rehabilitation Center
301 North Garrett, Elk City, OK 73644 · For profit - Partnership · 118 certified beds · (580) 225-2811 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 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 | 4 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 | 10.5% | 13.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.6% | 3.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.6% | 1.9% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.8% | 2.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.2% | 3.4% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.6% | 0.1% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 5.3% | 4.7% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.6% | 13.7% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 27.8% | 25.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 9.6% | 4.7% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 14.9% | 17.1% | 21.2% | better |
| 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 | 100.0% | 74.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.8% | 27.3% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 16.0% | 16.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.66 | 2.31 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.72 | 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.
50.9% 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 31 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 52.2% 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 23 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 0.05 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 2% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 12% 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 | 50.9%CMS range 33.7–66.9 | 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 | 11.0%CMS range 6.9–15.7 | 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 | 52.2% | 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 | 60.9% | 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 | 52.2% | 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 | 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 | 3.0% | 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 | 7.1%CMS range 3.4–13.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.78 | 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 118 beds and averages 43.8 residents a day — about 37% occupied, or roughly 74 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.27 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.27 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.11 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 3.73 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.49 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.30 to 0.21 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2025-08-01 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure:a. proper labeling/dating of stored bread, b. both the large and small ice machines were cleaned and free from debris, andc. hand hygiene was maintained during meal service to prevent cross contamination during kitchen observations. The DON identified 46 residents received food from the kitchen. Findings: A policy titled Receiving and Open Date Policy, undated, read in part, It is the policy of the nursing home to date food products received from delivery trucks upon arrival to facility and upon use. A policy titled Dietary Personnel Hand hygiene Policy, undated, read in part, The goal is to prevent the spread of foodborne illness and ensure the safety of residents, staff, and visitors.Gloves will be worn when handling ready-to-eat foods or other situations where bare hand contact is prohibited or poses a risk of contamination.Staff will be trained on the importance of hand hygiene, proper procedures, and the consequences of non-compliance.After touching any unclean surface or object that could…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-08-01 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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 ensure:a. a nebulizer mouthpiece was stored in a manner that promoted infection control practice for 1 (#3) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for respiratory care, andb. clean linens were stored appropriately for 1 of 1 laundry room observation.The DON identified 47 residents resided in the facility and 16 residents received nebulizer treatments.Findings:1. On 07/29/25 at 11:50 a.m., a nebulizer machine with a mouthpiece was observed on top of Resident #3's drawer. The mouthpiece was set on top of the drawer.An undated facility Use of Hand-Held Nebulizers policy read in part, All staff involved in the administration must follow infection control procedures and adhere to the treatment protocol to prevent cross-contamination and ensure efficacy.An undated facility Linen Storage Policy and Procedure policy read in part, All linen used in the facility must be stored, handled, and distributed in a manner that maintains cleanliness, prevents contamination, and complies with infection control standards.A physician's…
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 · F2024-03-20 · tag F0642 — widespreadEnsure a qualified health professional conducts resident assessments.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a registered nurse coordinated and signed resident assessments prior to submission to CMS. The DON reported 51 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Clinical - MDS list, dated 12/02/23 through 03/18/24, documented 112 assessments had been submitted to CMS and accepted. On 03/20/24 at 2:38 p.m., the MDS coordinator reported being a licensed practical nurse not a registered nurse. The MDS coordinator reported she had signed all the assessments that were submitted to CMS between 12/02/23 through 03/18/24. On 03/20/24 2:40 p.m., the DON reported the facility did not have a policy related to completing and submitting MDS assessments. The DON reported being aware that MDS assessments required an RN signature and had failed to sign any of the MDS assessments dated 12/02/23 through 03/18/24.
- Potential for harm · E2024-03-20 · 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 timely and complete beneficiary notices to three (#51, #16, #109) of three sampled residents reviewed for beneficiary notices. The Administrator identified 51 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An undated Form Instructions for the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) CMS-10123 policy, read in part, .The provider must ensure that the beneficiary or representative signs and dated the NOMNC to demonstrate that the beneficiary or representative received the notice and understands that the termination decision can be disputed . A Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) policy, dated 03/18/24, read in part, .It is the policy of this facility that [name of facility] must deliver required notice to residents/resident representatives at least 2 calendar days prior to termination of skilled nursing care . 1. Resident #51's Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage documented skilled services would end on 11/11/23. There was no resident or resident representative signature or date on the document. A Skilled Nursing Facility…
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 · E2024-03-20 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, interview the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan related to hospice, antipsychotic, anticoagulant, and opioid medications for two residents (#14 and #46) of 13 sampled residents reviewed for care plans. The Administrator identified 51 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #14 had diagnosis which included Dementia, depression, and pain. Facility had no Care Plan policy until 03/19/24. A care plan, dated 11/30/22, documented no focused area's for antipsychotic, anticoagulant, and opiod medications on the comprehensive care plan. On 03/19/24 at 11:34 a.m., the MDS Coordinator #1 was asked What the policy was for developing a comprehensive care plan. They stated they go by the resident's diagnosis and the cause section from admit MDS. They were then asked to review the comprehensive careplan for resident #14 and determine if the care plan had focus area's addressing the antipsychotic, anticoagulant, and Opioid mediation for Resident #14. They stated No, they are not on the care plan. They were then asked what the process if…
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 · E2024-03-20 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure care plans were reviewed and revised after each assessment for two (#31 and #36) of 13 residents whose care plans were reviewed. The administrator identified 51 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #31 was admitted with diagnoses which included non-Alzheimer's dementia, dementia with other behavioral disturbance, and depression A care plan, revised 09/13/23, documented [name removed] has a mood problem r/t depression. The care plan contained no documentation of being reviewed or revised with quarterly assessments since 09/13/23. A physician order, dated 12/29/23, documented Quetiapine 25 mg 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia. A quarterly assessment, dated 02/21/24, documented cognition was moderately impaired and routine use of antipsychotic medication. 2. Resident #36 had diagnoses which included non-Alzheimer's dementia, depression, and dementia with other behavioral disturbance. A care plan, revised on 05/31/23, documented [name removed] uses…
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 before2024-03-20 · 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 ensure staff maintained infection control measures when passing medications. The Administrator identifed 51 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Policy and Procedure, dated 03/04/21, read in part, .Precautions are utilized to prevent and control transmission of infectious organisms through direct and indirect contact .Hand hygiene means cleaning your hands by using either handwashing .antiseptic hand wash .antiseptic hand rub .medication preparation areas .Proper cleaning/disinfection of resident care care equipment including equipment shared among residents . On 03/19/24 at 7:32 a.m., CMA #2 obtained a blood pressure with a manual cuff and stethoscope on Resident #15. CMA #2 was observed to place their stethoscope around their neck and put the manual BP cuff back on the cart. CMA #2 did not sanitize the cuff or stethoscope or their hands. On 03/19/24 at 7:44 a.m., CMA #2 was observed to obtain a blood pressure on Resident #39 with a manual cuff and stethoscope. CMA #2 placed the stethoscope 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 · D2024-03-20 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the faciity failed to complete a significant change assessment for one (#57) of two sampled residents reviewed for a significant change. Findings: Resident #57 had diagnoses which included Parkinson's, repeated falls and pain. A Physician Order, dated 01/12/24 documented to admit the resident to hospice services. The clinical health record did not document a significant change assessment had been completed. The last assessment completed was a quarterly assessment on 02/08/24. On 03/18/24 at 4:11 p.m., the DON was asked if a significant change should have been completed when the resident was admitted to hospice. They stated Yes.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-20 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure resident assessments was transmitted within seven days of completion for one (#44) of two sampled residents reviewed for resident assessments. The Administrator identified 51 residents resided in the facility. Resident #44's quarterly assessment, dated 01/21/24, had been completed but still showed In Progress in the clinical health record. On 03/20/24 at 9:02 a.m., the MDS coordinator was asked why does the quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], still say In progress. They stated, I don't know might have missed it.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-20 · 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 ensure neurological checks were accurately completed for one (#22) of two sampled residents reviewed for neurological checks. The Administrator identified 51 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Resident Falls policy, dated 03/19/22, read in part .Assessments of falls with head injury or unwitnessed falls shall include neurological checks as follows: a. Q 15 min x 4, Q 30 min x 2, Q 1 Hr x 2, Q 2 Hrs x 1, Q 8 Hrs x 72 HRS . Resident #22 had diagnoses which included, debility, dementia and arthritis. A nurse progress note, dated 10/29/23 at 7:10 a.m., read in part, .Res observed in floor in sitting position .neuro [checks] initiated . A Neurological Record, dated 10/29/23 at 7:15 a.m., documented neuro checks were started every fifteen minutes for an hour, every 30 minutes times one check, every hour for two checks, every two hours for one check, then every shift for seven shifts. The record did not document neuro check was completed at 30 minutes for a second time, and did not document times eight hour checks had…
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 · D2024-03-20 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure staff secured medication carts when unattended. The Administrator identified 51 residents resided in the facility. Findings: On 03/19/24 at 07:32 a.m., CMA #2 was observed to be preparing medications at their cart. They left the cart unlocked and stepped a few feet away with their back to the cart to administer medications. On 03/19/24 at 07:38 a.m., CMA #2 was observed to leave their med cart unlocked to answer the phone. On 03/19/24 at 9:42 a.m., CMA #2 was asked when should the cart be secured. They stated everytime their away from it. CMA #2 was asked if they recalled leaving their cart unlocked. They stated they did not remember. On 03/19/24 10:49 a.m., the DON was asked is there any time when a cart should be left unlocked if the med aide is not present. They stated No.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ELK 421, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 25% | since 09/12/2014 |
| DAVID BRALY REV TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 09/12/2014 |
| MARIA TRAPP-BRALY REV TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 50% | since 09/12/2014 |
| DOUT, ALEXANDER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/30/2023 |
| FOGLE, KIMBERLY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/30/2023 |
| BANK, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2017 |
| BRIMER, ARMELDIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| GLOSSER, PATRICIA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/01/2022 |
| HENNIGH, CATHY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/2012 |
| HOPPER, DELANEE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/29/2023 |
| JERNIGAN, ZINA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/29/2023 |
| LEAPER, ROCKY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 03/01/2022 |
| WHITE, CORRISA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/01/2012 |
| BRALY, DAVID | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/14/2025 |
| TRAPP, MARIA | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 10/14/2025 |
| FORVIS MAZARS LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 11/01/1996 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 18 rows in the source record cover these 16 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
4 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.
About 78% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $86K 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 375479. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-01, 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.