Eufaula Manor Nursing And Rehabilitation Center
1152 Eunice Burns Road, Eufaula, OK 74432 · For profit - Corporation · 100 certified beds · (918) 689-3211 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- 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)
- nursing-staff turnover (64%) runs well above the national median (45%)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
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) | 3 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 | 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 3 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 | 12.2% | 13.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.9% | 3.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 4.1% | 1.9% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.8% | 2.8% | 2.0% | typical |
| 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 | 4.4% | 4.7% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 21.7% | 13.7% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 27.9% | 25.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.2% | 94.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.8% | 4.7% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 15.8% | 17.1% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.0% | 17.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 2.1% | 1.8% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 84.2% | 74.1% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 33.0% | 27.3% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 17.4% | 16.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.47 | 2.31 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.34 | 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.
57.4% 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 93 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 49.1% 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 55 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 0.22 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 28% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 19% 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 | 57.4%CMS range 48.0–65.1 | 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 | 12.7%CMS range 9.8–16.0 | 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 | 49.1% | 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 | 29.1% | 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 | 56.4% | 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 | 96.6% | 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 | 94.4% | 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.8% | 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 | 0.8% | 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 | 8.8%CMS range 5.6–14.6 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.17 | 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 100 beds and averages 86.8 residents a day — about 87% occupied, or roughly 13 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 4.44 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.14 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.13 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 4.20 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.54 on weekdays — 7% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.11 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 64% is well above 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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-02 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with a comfortable, homelike environment for two (#60 and #75) of six sampled residents who were reviewed for noise level/comfortable, homelike environment. The DON identified 76 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: Res #74 had diagnoses which included anxiety. Res #74's progress notes on 07/17/24, 07/19/24, 07/21/24, 07/22/24, 07/24/24, 07/25/24, 07/26/24, 07/30/24, 07/31/24, and 08/02/24 documented behaviors for Res #74 of yelling and screaming. On 07/30/24 between 9:00 a.m. and 10:45 a.m., observed Res #74 yelling loudly the same phrases repeatedly. The resident was also observed to be yelling profanity very frequently. The yelling was continual for approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes. On 08/02/24 at 11:15 a.m., Res #74 was observed to be yelling loudly the same phrases repeatedly for approximately 5 minutes. On 07/30/24 at 10:30 a.m. Res #60 reported they couldn't eat breakfast this am due 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 · E2024-08-02 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide 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 physician's orders were documented properly for one (#49) of six residents whose physician's orders were reviewed for accuracy. The DON identified four residents who had tube feedings Findings: Res #49 had diagnoses which included cerebral infarction and dysphagia. A physician's order, dated 03/29/24, documented Res #49 is to receive Jevity 1.5, 250ml via peg tube every 6 hours. A physician's order, dated 06/12/24, documented Res #49 is to receive Jevity 1.5, 350ml via peg tube every 6 hours. The July and medication administration record documented both feedings were administered each time the resident was administered a feeding. The August medication administration record documented both feedings were administered each time the resident was administered a feeding. On 08/02/24 at 3:32 p.m., the DON reported they aren't sure why there are two physician's orders for Res #49's feeding. On 08/02/24 at 4:05 p.m., the DON reported they wrote a new physician's order to clarify the feeding and reported the nurses were…
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 before2024-08-02 · 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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in good repair. The administrator identified 73 residents received services from the kitchen. Three residents received nutrition and hydration solely through a feeding tube. Findings: On 08/01/24 at 8:30 a.m., a tour of the kitchen was conducted. The following observations were made. a. the wall was not finished and base boards were missing in the ice machine area, b. ceiling lights were burned out and/or not working and not shielded, c. base boards were missing in the dish wash area. There were gaps between the wall and the floor, d. the gasket on the walk in cooler door was split on the bottom of the door, e. the metal threshold on the door opening to the walk in cooler was not secure to the floor, f. the metal floor in the walk in cooler was raised and not level. There was brown residue and standing water on the floor, and g. there was an accumulation of ice on the walk in freezer door. On 08/01/24 at 11:02 a.m., the DM was how staff ensure the kitchen was maintained in good repair. They…
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 before2024-08-02 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 resident assessments were accurate for one (#74) of six sampled residents whose assessments were reviewed for accuracy. The DON identified 76 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: The facility had no policies regarding resident assessments. Res #74 had diagnoses which included anxiety. Res #74's progress notes on 07/17/24, 07/19/24, 07/21/24, 07/22/24, 07/24/24, 07/25/24, 07/26/24, 07/30/24, 07/31/24, and 08/02/24 documented behaviors for Res #74 of yelling and screaming. Progress noted, dated 07/18/24, documented Res #74 had a fall and sustained a laceration above their left eye which resulted in the resident being transferred to the local hospital emergency department where they received seven sutured to the laceration. An admission resident assessment, dated 07/22/24, did not document any behaviors or a fall with injury for Res #74. On 08/02/24 at 2:00 p.m., the administrator reported they had no policies regarding resident assessments and use the RAI Manual as guidance. On 08/02/24 at 3:45 p.m., 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 · Dcited before2024-08-02 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to care plan behaviors for one (#74) of six sampled residents whose care plans were reviewed for accuracy. The DON identified 76 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: Res #74 had diagnoses which included anxiety. Res #74's progress notes on 07/17/24, 07/19/24, 07/21/24, 07/22/24, 07/24/24, 07/25/24, 07/26/24, 07/30/24, 07/31/24, and 08/02/24 documented behaviors for Res #74 of yelling and screaming. Res #74's comprehensive care plan did not have a care plan for behaviors. On 07/31/24 between 9:00 a.m. and 10:45 a.m., observed Res #74 yelling loudly the same phrases repeatedly. The resident was also observed to be yelling profanity very frequently. The yelling was continual for approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes. On 08/02/24 at 11:15 a.m., Res #74 was observed to be yelling loudly the same phrases repeatedly for approximately 5 minutes. On 08/02/24 at 4:20 p.m., the MDS Coordinator reported the behaviors for Res #74 should have been care planned.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-06-23 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the residents' status for three (#32, 53, and #60) of 26 residents whose assessments were reviewed. The Residents Census and Conditions Of Residents form Documented 65 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #60 had diagnoses which included atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery without angina pectoris. A physician order, dated 05/06/23, documented the facility was to administer Eliquis (an anticoagulant medication) once daily for a diagnosis of atherosclerotic heart disease. An admission Assessment, dated 05/12/23, documented the resident was intact with cognition and required extensive assistance with most ADLs. The assessment did not documented the resident was on an anticoagulant medication. A physician order, dated 05/26/23, documented the facility was to administer Eliquis two times a day related to atherosclerotic heart disease. On 06/16/23 at 09:30 a.m., Res #60 was observed in her bed. Res #60 stated they were taking the blood…
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 before2023-06-23 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
2. Res #7 had diagnoses which included heart failure, COPD and lower back pain. A physician order, dated 06/10/22, documented the facility was to administer furosemide (a diuretic medication) one time a day for edema related to heart failure. A physician order, dated 08/13/22, documented the facility was to administer tramadol (an opioid medication used for pain) two times a day for pain related to lower back pain. A physician order, dated 02/19/23, documented the facility was to administer Norco (a pain medication) every eight hours as needed for pain. A quarterly assessment, dated 06/20/23, documented the resident was intact with cognition and required supervision to limited assistance with most ADLs. The assessment documented the resident used diuretic and opioid medications. Res #7's care plan was reviewed and did not observe a care plan for diuretic or opioid use. On 06/20/23 at 4:36 p.m., the MDS coordinator stated they did not develop a care plan for the use of diuretic or opioid medications for Res #7. 3. Res #32 had diagnoses which included other recurrent depressive…
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 · E2023-06-23 · tag F0730 — patternObserve each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to conduct annual CNA competencies for three of five employee records reviewed. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 65 residents resided in the facility. Findings: On 06/23/23, the facility was asked for the CNA performance reviews for CNAs who had been employed at the facility for more than a year. The facility was unable to provide documentation of annual skill competencies for three CNAs whose records were provided for review. On 06/23/23 at 11:30 a.m., the DON stated they were not able to locate the competency documents for the CNAs.
- Potential for harm · E2023-06-23 · 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 ensure the blood pressure and heart rate were monitored before holding a medication as ordered by the physician for two (#32 and #48) of five sampled residents whose medications were reviewed for unnecessary medications. The Residents Census and Conditions Of Residents form Documented 65 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #32 had diagnoses which included HTN , myocardial infarction, and atherosclerosis of the aorta. A physician order, dated 05/08/23, documented losartan (an anti hypertensive medication) administer two times a day related to HTN, no parameters for holding the medication were documented. A quarterly assessment, dated 05/14/23, documented the resident was severely impaired with cognition. A care plan, last reviewed 05/30/23, documented the resident had hypertension. The care plan documented to give the anti hypertensive medications as ordered and to monitor for side effects such as orthostatic hypotension, increased heart rate, and effectiveness. The May 2023 MAR had areas 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 · Ecited before2023-06-23 · 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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in good repair. The Residents Census and Conditions Of Residents form documented 65 residents resided in the facility. Findings: On 06/15/23 at 6:40 a.m., an initial tour of the kitchen was conducted. On 06/15/23/ at 6:50 a.m., the walk-in refrigerator and walk-in freezer was observed to have ice build-up around the door of the freezer section which would not allow the door to the freezer to close completely. Water from the ice buildup around the door of the walk-in freezer was observed to have melted and was present on the floor of the walk-in refrigerator. On 06/15/23 at 6:52 a.m., the DM stated even when the ice was removed around the door of the walk-in freezer and with the door shut completely the ice would build up again and cause the same issue. The DM stated they were approved for a kitchen remodel and the freezer was supposed to be on the list but did not know when the remodel was going to happen. On 06/15/23 at 7:17 a.m., the wall behind the dish machine was observed to have…
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 · D2023-06-23 · 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 facility failed to conduct a significant change assessment after the resident was admitted to hospice services for one (#116) of 26 sampled residents whose assessments were reviewed. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 65 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: Res #116 had diagnoses which included emphysema and protein-calorie malnutrition. A physician order dated, 05/30/23, documented to admit Res #116 to hospice care. The resident's medical record was reviewed and did not document a significant change assessment had been completed within the required timeframe. On 06/20/23 at 2:59 p.m., the MDS coordinator was asked if the facility had completed and submitted a significant change assessment for Res #116 upon their admission to hospice services. The MDS coordinator stated they had overlooked it and a significant change related to admission to hospice had not been completed.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-23 · 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 Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement interventions to prevent falls for one (#168) of five residents sampled for accident hazards and falls. Res #168 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for skilled nursing and therapy related to a fall at home which had resulted in a right hip fracture. The resident had a fall in the facility on 03/14/22 which resulted in a second broken right hip that required another surgery. No interventions were in place to prevent falls from the resident's admit until the fall on 03/14/22. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 65 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #168 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses which included fracture of right leg, polyneuropathy, Alzheimer's disease, chronic pain, insomnia, and scoliosis. A nurse practitioner progress note, dated 02/15/22 at 8:59 a.m., documented Res #168 was admitted to the facility after a recent hospitalization due to a right hip…
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 · D2023-06-23 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the physician and/or NP responded in the proper time frame to a pharmacist MRR for two (#7 and #32) of five sampled for unnecessary medications and failed to ensure the MRR policy documented the required components. The Residents Census and Conditions Of Residents form Documented 54 receiving psychoactive medications resided in the facility. Findings: A Monthly Drug Regimen Review Policy, Rev 11-22-16 read in part .The facility will ensure that the Consultant Pharmacist will review each Resident's drug regimen monthly and address issues identified promptly. Procedure 1. The Pharmacist shall submit a written report at least monthly to the Administrator/designee which shall be a summary of thee duties performed by the consultant pharmacist any error or problems found in the facility, delivery of pharmaceutical services and a detailed listing of any discrepancies and/or irregularities noted by the pharmacist during his drug regimen reviews. 2. Upon identification of an irregularity that would require urgent action 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 · D2023-06-23 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 ordered medications documented an appropriate diagnosis for one (#32) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The Residents Census and Conditions Of Residents form Documented 54 receiving psychoactive medications resided in the facility. Findings: Res #32 had diagnoses which included depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, and dementia without behaviors. A physician order, dated 05/09/23, documented risperidone (an antipsychotic medication) was ordered to treat dementia without behaviors. A quarterly assessment, dated 05/14/23, documented the resident was severely impaired with cognition and required extensive assistance with most activities of daily living. The assessment documented the resident received an antipsychotic and antidepressant medication six days of the seven day assessment period. The assessment documented antipsychotics were received on a routine basis. On 06/20/23 at 9:50 a.m., the DON stated the diagnosis of dementia was not an appropriate diagnosis for the risperidone. The DON…
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 CENTRAL ARKANSAS NURSING CENTERS — 38 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 | 3 of 5 | 3.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 3.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 4.2 | -2.2 vs chain |
The other 37 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| MORTON, MICHAEL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2005 |
| SAMS, JERRY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/12/2014 |
| ANDERSON, WILLIAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/10/2024 |
| CENTRAL ARKANSAS NURSING CENTERS INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| EUFAULA MANOR INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/12/2024 |
| NURSING CONSULTANTS INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
| ERWIN, MATTHEW | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/10/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
3 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 $946K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% 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 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 375395. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-08-02, 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.