Willow Creek Health Care
2300 West Noble, Guthrie, OK 73044 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 100 certified beds · (405) 282-1686 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — 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)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (26% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 5 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 | 8.8% | 13.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.3% | 3.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.8% | 1.9% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.5% | 2.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.6% | 3.4% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 1.5% | 0.1% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.9% | 4.7% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.1% | 13.7% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 26.6% | 25.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.3% | 4.7% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.7% | 17.1% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 15.3% | 17.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.17 | 2.31 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.23 | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.03 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 1% 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.8%CMS range 6.4–16.1 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.88 | 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 49.2 residents a day — about 49% occupied, or roughly 51 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 4.14 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.32 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.99 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 3.76 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.29 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.36 to 0.23 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 26% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-11 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff wore gloves and cleaned the resident's skin prior to injection for one (#28) of one sample resident observed for insulin injection. The administrator identified 51 residents resided in the facility. An undated facility matrix documented eight residents received insulin. Findings: A Subcutaneous Injections policy, dated March 2011, documented to put on gloves and clean the site with alcohol prior to injection. On 12/10/24 at 11:10 a.m., LPN #1 was observed to inject Resident #28 with insulin. LPN #1 was observed not wearing gloves or cleaning the site prior to injection. On 12/10/24 at 11:11 a.m., LPN #1 stated they should have worn gloves and clean the site prior to injection. They confirmed they did not wear gloves or clean the site prior to injection. On 12/10/24 at 11:33 a.m., RN #2 stated staff should wear gloves and use alcohol on the site prior to injection.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-27 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
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 pain management was provided for one (#50) of one sampled resident reviewed for pain management. A Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 09/25/23, identified 54 residents resided in the facility and 35 residents on a pain management program. Findings: A Pain-Clinical Protocol policy, revised March 2018, read in part .the physician and staff will identify individuals who have pain or who are at risk for having pain .the staff will reassess the individual's pain at least each shift for acute pain or significant changes in levels of chronic pain .review should review frequency, duration, mood behavior, sleep pattern . Resident #50 had diagnoses which included dementia, depression, down syndrome, and stage three pressure ulcer. An admission Assessment, dated 07/17/23, documented the resident's cognition was moderately impaired with daily decision making. A Physician's Order, dated 08/18/23, documented to administer Tylenol 325mg every six hours as needed for pain. A Progress Note, dated 09/01/23 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-11-09 · 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, observations and interviews, the facility failed to review/revise/implement the care plans for three (#15, 30 and #45) of eight sampled residents reviewed for care plans. This affected: The Resident Census and Condition of Residents, dated 11/03/22, documented the facility census was 49. Findings: 1. Resident #15 had diagnoses to include major depressive disorder, insomnia, atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure. A Physician's Order, dated 03/11/22, documented Resident #15 was to be administered bupropion, an antidepressant, 150 mg twice a day for depression. APsychological Services Progress Note[s], dated 08/11/22, 08/18/22, 09/01/22, 09/08/22, and 09/29/22, read in parts, .Current Risk Factors .Suicidal/Self Injury: Ideation . A Physician's Order, dated 10/14/22, documented Resident #15 may have a consult and be treated by mental health for depression. A Physician's Order, dated 10/14/22, documented staff must witness Resident #15 to swallow pills, to check the mouth to make certain pills have been swallowed. A Quarterly Assessment, dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-11-09 · 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 reviews, observations and interviews, the facility failed to a. re-assess/monitor and intervene for one (#26) of one sampled resident with a change of condition; and b. follow physician's orders to obtain/monitor weekly weights for four (#30, 34 and #45) of 21 sampled residents reviewed for physician's orders. The Residents Census and Condition of Residents, dated 11/03/22, documented the facility census was 49. Findings: 1. Resident #26 had diagnoses to include hypertension, cardiac arrhythmia, pacemaker placement, mechanical complications of cardiac electronic device - sequelae, and heart disease. A progress note dated 10/08/22 at 3:00 p.m., read in parts, .complaining of having the fuzzy-wuzzies .taking a shower and dropped his washcloth and bent over to pick it up when he had the 'fuzzy-wuzzies' .vital signs: 170/102, 60 .assisted to get into his wheelchair and taken to his room .still a little unsteady while getting into his wheelchair .was told to lie down in his bed for an hour . The clinical record contained no documentation Resident #26 was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-11-09 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement 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, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a PRN psychotropic medications order was limited to 14 days for one (#26) of five sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents documented 27 residents received psychoactive medications. The Census was 49. Findings: Resident #26 had diagnoses to include major depressive disorder, and insomnia. A Care Plan, dated 02/07/18, read in parts, .Psychotropic drug use .Has interrupted Sleep patter r/t insomnia .Restoril (temazepam) 15 mg PO Q HR PRN . A physician order, dated 11/30/18, documented Resident #26 was to be administered temazepam 15 mg every evening for insomnia. The order was discontinued, and a new order written on 09/17/21. A physician order, dated 09/17/21, documented Resident #26 was to be administered temazepam 15 mg PRN at bedtime. The order was discontinued and a new order written on 01/06/22. A physician order, dated 01/06/22 documented Resident #26 was to be administered temazepam 15 mg PRN at bedtime. The order was discontinued and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-11-09 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to have an effective process to formulate/re-evaluate the resident's rights to formulate advance directives. This affected two (#30 and #45) of two sampled residents reviewed for advanced directives. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 11/03/22, documented the census to be 49. Findings: 1. Resident #30 had diagnoses to include dementia, atrial fibrillation with a pacemaker placement, history of myocardial infarction and a history of a fractured femur with sequela. A dated 10/25/20, read in part, DNR. The clinical record did not contain an advance directive. There was no documentation the resident and/or representative had been offered information to formulate an advance directive. 2. Resident #45 had diagnoses to include dementia, respiratory disease, altered mental status, and malnutrition. A Physician Order, dated 10/22/21, read in part, Code Status: Full Code. The clinical record did not contain an advance directive. There was no documentation the resident and/or representative had been offered…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-11-09 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the physician of changes in condition for one (Resident #26) of one sampled resident reviewed for change of condition. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents, dated 11/03/22, documented the census was 49. Findings: Resident #26 had diagnoses to include hypertension, cardiac arrhythmia, pacemaker placement, mechanical complications of cardiac electronic device - sequel, heart disease, and chondrocostal junction syndrome. A Physician Order, dated 11/09/17, documented resident #26 was to be administered metoprolol tartrate, 25 mg twice a day. The medications was to be held if the systolic blood pressure was less than 110 and/or the diastolic blood pressure was less than 60. A Physician Order, dated 12/01/17, documented Resident #26 was to be administered furosemide 20 mg once a day. The medications was to be held if the systolic blood pressure was less than 110 and/or the diastolic blood pressure was less than 60. A Progress Note, dated 10/03/22 at 8:00 a.m., read in part, .Hospital for pacemaker consult . A…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-11-09 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan to include interventions to prevent falls for one (#30) of three sampled residents reviewed for care plans. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents, dated 11/03/22, documented the census was 49. Finding: Resident #30 had diagnoses to include dementia, atrioventricular block, atrial fibrillation, and bradycardia. An Accident/Incident Report, dated 11/16/21, read in parts, .memory impaired .sitting on floor [with] legs under the w/c .moved w/c away from bedside, instructed Resident to call for help when .needs to get up. Showed [Resident #30] where [Resident #30's] call light is . The Fall Care Plan, dated 11/16/21, read in parts, .failed attempt to self transfer .Showed resident call light and to call for help when getting up . An Accident/Incident Report, dated 12/10/21, read in parts, .memory impaired .trying to self-transfer from bed to wc and fell .non-slip socks on, no pants or brief on, wc brakes locked .Remind res to call for assistance . The Fall Care Plan, dated 12/10/21,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-11-09 · 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
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide interventions to prevent repeated falls for one (#30) of three residents reviewed for falls. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents, dated 11/03/22, the facility census was 49. Findings: Resident #30 had diagnoses to include dementia, atrioventricular block, atrial fibrillation, and bradycardia. A Significant Change of Status Assessment, dated 02/01/22, documented Resident #30 had experienced one fall with no injury, and two or more falls with skin tears, abrasions, lacerations, superficial bruising, hematoma, and sprains: or any fall-related injury that causes the resident to complain of pain. The comprehensive care plan for falls did not contain interventions to remind the resident to use the call light and request assistance were appropriate. An Accident/Incident Report, dated 05/22/22, read in parts, .sitting on bed room floor .Recommended steps to prevent recurrence .call light for staff to assist to toilet while diarrhea persists . A Fall Care Plan, dated 5/22/22, read in parts, .Failed attempt at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-11-09 · tag F0741 — failed to have staff trained for behavioral health — isolatedEnsure that the facility has sufficient staff members who possess the competencies and skills to meet the behavioral health needs of residents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff were competent to report/follow policy regarding a residents' reports of suicidal ideations with a plan. This affected one (#15) of six sampled resident reviewed for behavioral health and unnecessary medications. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents, dated 11/03/22, documented the facility census was 49. Findings: The facility's Suicide Threats policy, read in parts, .Resident suicide threats shall be taken seriously and addressed appropriately .staff shall report any resident threats of suicide immediately to the Nurse Supervisor/Charge Nurse .A staff member shall remain with the resident until the Nurse Supervisor/Charge Nurse arrives to evaluate the resident . Resident #15 had diagnoses to include major depressive disorder, insomnia, atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure. A physician's order, dated 03/11/22, documented Resident #15 was to be administered bupropion, an antidepressant, 150 mg twice a day for depression. A Psychological Services Progress Note[s], dated…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-11-09 · 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 — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to: 1. ensure medication/treatment carts remained locked and keys removed when unattended, and 2. ensure medications that required refrigeration were refrigerated as recommended by the manufacturer for one (#15) of one sampled residents reviewed for refrigerated medications. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents report, dated 11/01/2022, documented 49 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Security of Medication Cart policy, revised April 2007, read in parts, .Medication carts must be securely locked at all times when out of the nurse's view. When the medication cart is not being used, it must be locked and parked at the nurses' station or inside the medication room . A Storage of Medications policy, revised April 2007, read in parts, .Medications requiring refrigeration must be stored in a refrigerator located in the drug room at the nurses' station or other secured location. Medications must be stored separately from food and must be labeled accordingly . 1. On 11/07/22, at 4:33 p.m., a…
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 before2022-11-09 · 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 record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure staff sanitized the blood pressure cuff after resident use for one (#1) of three sampled residents observed having their blood pressure taken during medication administration. The DON identified 11 residents with infection precautions posted on their room door. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents report, dated 11/01/22, identified 49 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Cleaning and Disinfection of Resident-Care Items and Equipment policy, revised October 2018, read in parts .resident-care equipment, including reusable items and durable medical equipment will be cleaned and disinfected to current CDC recommendations for disinfection and the OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Standard .Durable medical equipment (DME) must be cleaned and disinfected before reuse by another resident . On 11/03/22 at 09:43 a.m., CMA #3 was observed not to sanitize wrist blood pressure cuff after using on prior resident. On 11/03/22 at 10:00 a.m., after gathering resident #1 medications, CMA #3 was observed 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.
“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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COLES NURSING HOME | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 01/01/2010 |
| CHAPPELL 2012 SUCCESSION TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 06/05/2012 |
| GOLDEN AGE NURSING HOME OF GUTHRIE INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 06/05/2012 |
| HMLC LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 06/05/2012 |
| MARY LOU CHAPPELL TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/12/2018 |
| DUTTON, LAURA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/01/2010 |
| HASTINGS, TANDIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/03/2014 |
5 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 82% 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 $695K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 15% 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.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OK
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Oklahoma Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 375436. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-12-11, 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.