Elmbrook Of Hugo

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

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.

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.

52.5% 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 95 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 56.7% 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 30 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: not reported. This home filed no therapist hours at all in its payroll data for this quarter. That is a gap in what it reported, and we do not read it as an absence of therapy — the homes that file nothing here include ones that discharged hundreds of Medicare rehab patients in the very same period, who plainly received therapy from someone. Because we cannot tell a home that under-reports from one that genuinely provides little, this home is left out of the comparison above rather than scored at zero. Ask it directly how many therapist hours a rehab resident gets, and on which days.

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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 100 beds and averages 55.4 residents a day — about 55% occupied, or roughly 45 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.50 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.31 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.10 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.20 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.63 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.35 to 0.20 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 43% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

18 citations, most serious first. The 13 most serious are shown; the remaining 5 are one tap away and print in full.

• Immediate jeopardy · J2025-05-06 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolated
  Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  On 04/17/25, a past noncompliance Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to ensure Res #35 was not verbally abused. On 04/17/25 at 1:30 p.m. the OSDH was notified and verified the existence of the past noncompliance IJ related to the facility's failure to ensure residents were not verbally abused. On 05/06/25 at 12:48 p.m. the administrator was notified of the immediate jeopardy situation. The administrator was provided the IJ template. Documentation showed the facility completed staff in-service regarding abuse on 03/03/25. Employee #1 was suspended, then terminated on 03/04/25. A quality assurance meeting was held on 03/05/25 regarding abuse. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was not verbally abused for 1 (#35) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The DON identified six allegations of abuse were reported to the OSDH within the past year. Findings: On 04/15/25 at 2:08 p.m., Res #35 was observed walking in a common area on the memory unit. The resident was speaking…

  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.

  Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Immediate jeopardy · J2024-06-21 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — isolated
  Provide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY A past noncompliance Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist effective [DATE] related to the facility's failure to ensure cardio-pulmonary resuscitation was provided according to standards of care for Res #1 who was a full code status and implement all components of the facility's CPR policy On [DATE] at 4:20 p.m., the Oklahoma State Department of Health was notified and verified the existence of the past noncompliance IJ related to the facility's failure to implement their CPR policy and provide CPR to Res #1 who was a full code. The past noncompliance IJ was removed effective [DATE] after the facility put measure in place to prevent recurrence. On [DATE] staff were in-serviced on CPR status, DNR code status policy and procedures were reviewed, code status identification policy and procedures were included in all new hire packets, with in-person training upon hire. On [DATE] at 10:35 a.m., code status identification was observed at each room/name plates on the memory care unit. On [DATE] 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
• Actual harm · G2024-06-21 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
  Immediately 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the physician of a resident's change in condition for one (#1) of four sampled residents who were reviewed for neglect. The administrator identified 55 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: The Guidelines for Notifying Physicians of Clinical Problems, revised [DATE], read in part, The charge nurse or supervisor should contact the attending physician if a clinical situation appears to require immediate discussion and management . Immediate Notification (Acute) Problems .Immediate implies that the physician should be notified as soon as possible .These situations include: .Rapid decline or continued instability .New onset of, or progression of usual, .dyspnea with a pulse oximetry below 90% or at least 3% below usual pulse oximetry range . Res #1 had diagnoses which included congestive heart failure, pneumonia and dyspnea. A physician's order, dated [DATE], documented to administer oxygen via nasal cannula at two liters per minute 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-06 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure 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 were accurate for indwelling catheters for 1 (#24) of 13 sampled residents reviewed for resident assessments. The ADON identified 52 residents resided in the facility. Findings: On 04/15/25 at 11:48 a.m., Res #24 was observed lying in bed. A bedside commode was observed sitting beside the bed. No indwelling catheter was observed. A face sheet, dated 01/05/24, showed Res #24 was admitted with diagnoses which included dementia and peripheral vascular disease. A quarterly assessment, dated 03/20/25, showed Res #24 had a BIMS score of 4 and was severely cognitively impaired. The assessment showed Res #24 had an indwelling catheter. Res #24's medical record did not document an order for an indwelling catheter during the assessment review period of 03/14/25 through 03/20/25. On 04/15/24 at 12:00 p.m., Res #24 stated they did not have a catheter. They stated they did not remember if they had ever had a catheter. On 04/16/25 at 2:37 p.m., the minimum data set coordinator stated Res #24 did not 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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-06 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
  Develop 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was implemented for 1 (#33) of 1 resident sampled for smoking. The ADON reported five residents in the facility smoked. Findings: An undated medical diagnoses list for Res #33 showed the resident admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included hypertensive heart disease, chronic atrial fibrillation, and anxiety disorder. Res #33's smoking assessment, dated 01/09/25, showed the resident was safe to smoke by self. Res #33's care plan, dated 01/14/2025, showed no documentation the resident smoked. On 04/17/25 at 10:32 a.m., the ADON reported smoking should have been care planned.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-05-06 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
  Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to follow the plan of care for 1 (#18) of 1 sampled residents reviewed for respiratory care . The ADON reported 52 residents resided in the facility. Findings: On 04/15/25 at 1:23 p.m., Res #18 was observed sitting on the side of their bed with oxygen at 3 liters per minute. No date was observed on the tubing or humidifier bottle. On 04/16/25 at 11:33 a.m., Res #18 was observed sitting up on the side of their bed watching television. Their oxygen tubing and humidifier bottle were observed and showed no date. An undated medical diagnoses list for Res #18 showed diagnoses which include heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Res #18's care plan, dated 03/17/25, read in part, Approach: Change Oxygen tubing weekly, label with correct date, ensure oxygen tubing in proper storage bag with correct date. On 04/17/25 at 10:38 a.m., the ADON reported the care plan should have been followed.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-21 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
  Honor 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was offered the choice to formulate an advanced directive for one (#1) of four sampled residents whose advance directive acknowledgements were reviewed. The administrator identified 55 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: An Advance Directives policy, revised on [DATE], read in part, The resident has the right to formulate an advance directive .1. Within 72 hours of admission of a resident, the social services director or designee inquires of the resident, his/her family members and/or his or her legal representative, about the existence of any written advance directives .3. Written information about the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment, and the right to formulate an advance directive is provided .4. Written information includes a description of the facility's policies to implement advance directives and applicable state laws. An Emergency Procedure - Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation policy, revised…

  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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2024-06-21 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
  Provide 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to: a. follow physician's orders for a resident with oxygen, b. obtain orders for a CPAP, and c. ensure a CPAP was in working order for one (#1) of four sampled residents who were reviewed for neglect. The administrator identified 55 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: An Oxygen Administration policy, revised [DATE], read in part, The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for safe oxygen administration .1. Verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure. Review the physician's orders for oxygen administration. 2. Review the resident's care plan .1. Oxygen therapy is administered by way of .nasal cannula .b. The nasal cannula is a tube that is place approximately one-half inch into the resident's nose. A CPAP/BiPAP Support policy, revised [DATE], read in part, 1. Only a qualified and properly trained nurse or respiratory therapist should administer oxygen through a CPAP mask .3. Review the physician's order 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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-12-07 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
  Procure 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 store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. The DON identified 59 resident residing in the facility who receive meals from the kitchen. Findings: 1. On 12/04/23 at 9:33 a.m., an initial tour of the kitchen was conducted. The following observations were made. On 12/04/23 at 9:38 a.m., the walk in refrigerator contained two open large cans of pudding one chocolate and the other one was banana pudding. The tops of the puddings were covered with plastic wrap but did not have a date on the cans, a scoop was in the banana pudding. A cut tomato wrapped in plastic wrap was not labeled or dated. A resalable bag of corn bread with a used by date of 11/30/23. A tray of uncooked sausage on the bottom shelf open to air was in the refrigerator. On 12/04/23 at 9:43 a.m., observed in the walk in freezer were stuffed peppers open to air, garlic toast in a box with the bag open to air. At that that time the DM stated the items should be sealed. On 12/04/23 at 9:44 a.m., the DM…

  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.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2023-12-07 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — pattern
  Provide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
  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 with limited range of motion received restorative services and /or assistance to prevent further decrease in range of motion for one (#37) of one sampled resident reviewed for mobility. The Long-Term Care Facility Application for Medicare and Medicaid form documented 60 residents resided in the facility. The DON reported eight residents had contractures. Findings: A facility policy Resident Mobility and Range of Motion, dated July 2017 read in part, 1. Residents will not experience an avoidable reduction in range of Motion (ROM) .3. Residents with limited mobility will receive appropriate services, equipment and assistance to maintain or improve mobility unless reduction in mobility is unavoidable . Res #37 had diagnoses which included Hemiplegia, unspecified affecting left non-dominant side. A physical therapy Discharge summary, dated [DATE], documented the discharge status recommendations were to maintain current level…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-12-07 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolated
  Honor 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the code status was identified and correct for two (#18 and #19) of three resident whose code status was reviewed. The administrator identified 60 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #19 had diagnoses which included atrial fibrillation, left ventricular failure, and diabetes mellitus. A physician order, dated [DATE] documented the resident's code status was DNR. A quarterly assessment, dated [DATE], documented the resident's cognitive skills were severely impaired and was dependent with ADLs. On [DATE] at 10:50 a.m., the resident was observed in a low bed with a sheet over their head. On [DATE] at 8:57 a.m., the EHR documented the resident had a DNR. The DNR had a signature of the resident's family member and had not been dated. The EHR did not contain a POA for the resident. On [DATE] at 12:05 p.m., the DON stated the resident did not have a POA. On [DATE] at 12:07 p.m., the social services…

  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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2023-12-07 · tag F0582 — isolated
  Give residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide a CMS 10123 NOMNC form to a resident who received skilled services and afterwards went home for one (#261) of three residents sampled for beneficiary protection notification review. The administrator identified 60 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: Res #261's medical record documented the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged from skilled services on 11/16/23 and went home. On 12/05/23 at 12:20 p.m., SS stated a NOMNC form was not provided to the resident.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-12-07 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure 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 investigation, the facility failed to ensure MDS assessments accurately reflect the residents' status for two (#11 and #37) of 15 residents whose assessments were reviewed. The facility failed to accurately assess for: a. gradual dose reduction for Res #11. b. ROM for Res #37. The Long-Term Care Facility Application for Medicare and Medicaid form documented 60 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #11 had diagnoses which included anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer's disease. A consultant pharmacist review, dated 02/23/23, documented a request for reduction in the resident Seroquel 200 mg. The physician signed the MRR on 02/26/23 and documented to leave the medication alone. A quarterly assessment, dated 10/28/23, documented the resident was moderately impaired with cognition and was dependent with ADLs. The assessment documented the resident had hallucinations and received an antipsychotic medication during the look back period. The assessment documented the resident had a GDR completed on 02/26/23 and the GDR had…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Fines & penalties

$29,580 in federal fines across 2 penalties.

• $15,147 — penalty dated 2025-05-06
• $14,433 — penalty dated 2024-06-21

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to ELMBROOK MANAGEMENT COMPANY — 11 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 →

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

The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

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 80% 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 $744K 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 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