Broadway Living Center

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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 101 beds and averages 83.0 residents a day — about 82% occupied, or roughly 18 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.79 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.30 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.07 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 3.32 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.99 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.38 to 0.11 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

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.

15 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 5 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · F2024-03-18 · 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,record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure the appropriate testing strips were used for checking sanitization levels for the dishwasher and the three compartment sink observed during one of two kitchen observations. The Director of Operations identified 82 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Sanitation test strips policy, dated 08/06, read in part, .If Dishwasher sanitizing test strip is off, use best practice: stop machine, make 3 sink system and do manually while awaiting service repair call. A Washing by Hand instruction guide for wash, rinse and sanitize, undated, read in part, .Wash. Fill the first basin with hot water (at least 110 degrees F) .Sanitize the rinsed items in the third basin using either hot water or chemical solution . On 03/11/24 at 12:29 p.m., the dishwasher sanitization was tested by the DM to read between 100-200 ppm. It was observed to be dark purple (100-200 ppm) in color and did not match the shades of the blue color grid on the side of the bottle the DM used to test. On 03/11/24 at 12:30 p.m., the DM stated…

  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 · E2024-03-18 · tag F0576 — pattern
  Ensure residents have reasonable access to and privacy in their use of communication methods.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide mail delivery to residents on Saturdays. The Director of Operations identified 82 residents resided in the facility. Findings: On 03/14/24 at 10:25 a.m., a Resident Council group meeting was held with 11 residents. They stated the mail did not get distributed on the weekends. On 03/14/24 at 11:30 a.m., the Director of Operations stated mail was delivered Monday through Friday and packages were put in the medication room until Monday morning when staff could verify that it belonged to the resident. On 03/14/24 at 11:54 a.m., the Director of Operations stated if weekend mail was actually brought into the facility it would be delivered, but mail delivered to the locked mailbox would not be delivered until Monday.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-03-18 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
  Develop 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure care plans were revised for two (#1 and #63) of 16 sampled residents reviewed for care plans. The DOO identified 82 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Care Plan policy, revised 12/16, read in part, .The plan of care provides us with a profile on the needs of each resident, identifies the role of each service in meeting these needs, and the supporting measures each service will use to accomplish these goals .Resident care plans will be reviewed at least every three months to ensure that timely updating of problems, goals, and interventions are being done by the Multidisciplinary Team . 1. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included chronic pain, unspecified dementia, dysphagia, and spastic hemiplegia affecting left nondominant side. A Significant Change Resident Assessment, dated 03/24/23, documented Resident #1 had moderate cognitive impairment and the resident had an impairment on one side for the upper and lower…

  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 · E2023-01-19 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — pattern
  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 offer residents the choice to formulate advanced directives for six (#25, 39, 82, 37, 60, and #42) of 12 sampled residents reviewed for advanced directives. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated [DATE], documented 85 residents resided in the facility. It documented there were no residents who had advanced directives. Findings: A facility policy titled Advance Directives, revised [DATE], read in parts .Upon admission, the resident will be provided with written information concerning the right to refuse or accept medical or surgical treatment and to formulate an advance directive if he or she chooses to do so .Information about whether or not the resident has executed an advance directive shall be displayed prominently in the medical record . 1. Res #25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident's record did not contain any documentation the resident was offered the choice to formulate an advance directive. Res #39 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2023-01-19 · tag F0606 — failed to not employ staff found guilty of abuse — pattern
  Not hire anyone with a finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or theft.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to perform fingerprint background checks for two (CNA #1 and RN #1) of five sampled employees hired within the last six months. The administrator identified 29 employees hired in the last 6 months. Findings: An undated facility policy, titled RESIDENT ABUSE, MISTREATMENT, NEGLECT, MISAPPROPRIATION AND EXPLOITATION POLICY, read in part .The facility shall maintain and provide evidence of efforts to determine if newly hired persons have records of abuse. Screening potential for a history of abuse, neglect or mistreating residents includes attempting to obtain information from previous employers and/or current employers, and checking with appropriate licensing board and registries. This shall occur through background checks with appropriate licensed agency . CNA #1 was hired 07/21/22. RN #1 was hired 10/08/22. On 1/19/22 at 9:00 a.m., the HR director provided five employee files. She stated at that time CNA #1 did not have an OK screen clearance letter because she did not have an Oklahoma identification so the fingerprinting…

  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 · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2023-01-19 · tag F0641 — pattern
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  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 the accuracy of MDS assessments for three (#16, 51, and #57) of 20 residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 85 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #16 had diagnoses which included GERD, dementia, and diabetes. The weight record, documented on 08/12/22 the resident's weight was 168.0 lbs. The weight record, documented on 09/01/22, the resident's weight was 159.0 lbs. A nutrition progress note, dated 11/14/22, documented Res #16's weight as 155 lbs and had a 10% weight loss in the past 6 months. The weight record, documented on 12/02/22, the resident's weight was 154.0 lbs. A quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], documented the resident was severely cognitively impaired, weighed 154 lbs, and had no or unknown weight loss of 5% or more in the last month or loss of 10% or more in the last six months. On 01/18/23 at 3:00 p.m., the MDS coordinator stated she should 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 · E2023-01-19 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
  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 — 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 comprehensive care plans for anticoagulant use for two (#52 and #72) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The MDS coordinator identified eight residents who received anticoagulant medications. Findings: 1. Res #52 had diagnoses which included acute combined systolic (congestive) and diastolic (congestive) heart failure, nontraumatic subdural hemorrhage, and hypertension. A physician order, dated 08/04/20, documented to administer Eliquis (an anticoagulant) 5 mg two times a day for acute combined systolic and diastolic heart failure. A quarterly MDS assessment, dated 11/23/22, documented the resident was moderately cognitively impaired and received anticoagulant medications seven out of seven days during the review period. A care plan, reviewed 12/29/22, did not document anticoagulant use. On 01/18/23 at 12:47 p.m., the MDS coordinator stated anticoagulants should be documented under the disease process it is prescribed 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 Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-01-19 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — pattern
  Develop 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

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to review and revise a care plan for two (#71 and #60) of 21 sampled residents whose care plans were reviewed. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report documented 85 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #71 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of schizophrenia, vascular dementia, and insomnia. A Wandering Risk Assessment, dated 07/12/22, documented the resident was at high risk for wandering. An incident report, dated 08/19/22, documented a good samaritan notified the facility that the resident was found wandering outside and they were currently sitting with resident. A care plan revision, dated 09/28/22, documented the resident was an elopement risk. The care plan documented the resident had an incident on 08/19/22 of climbing over the fence in the patio area and now the patio area was now locked with a key pad for safety. On 01/18/23 at 9:40 a.m., the MDS coordinator was asked if the resident's care plan should…

  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 · D2023-01-19 · tag F0645 — isolated
  PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure accuracy of a level I PASRR for one (#75) of five residents who were reviewed for PASRR evaluations. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 85 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #75 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included schizophrenia. A PASRR level one screening form, dated 05/20/22, documented the resident did not have a diagnosis of a serious mental illness (for example, schizophrenic, paranoid, panic, mood, or other severe anxiety or depressive disorder, somatoform disorder, personality disorder, or other psychotic disorder, or another mental disorder that may lead to a chronic disability). On 01/17/23 at 10:40 a.m., the MDS coordinator stated Res #75's level one PASRR documented no serious mental illness. She stated the schizophrenia diagnosis at admission was not included on the screening form but should have been.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2020-03-05 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — pattern
  Reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure one (#64) of one sampled residents was provided a means to ambulate in the facility without being confined to a wheelchair. The facility identified 25 residents who required assistance with mobility and 87 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #64 had diagnoses which included non Alzheimer's dementia. An annual assessment, dated 01/23/20, documented the resident's cognition was severely impaired and was independent with the use of a wheelchair for mobility. A care plan for ADLs, dated 02/11/20, documented the resident was primarily independent with her ADL tasks. She was able to self transfer, dress and toilet herself. She utilized a wheelchair for mobility and at times would stand up and push the backwards facing chair, and was unable to be redirected. Interventions included to encourage the resident to participate to the fullest extent possible with each interaction. The clinical record documented the resident was receiving weekly restorative care and continued 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

“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

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 6 rows in the source record cover these 2 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

What families pay in OK