No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Mitchell Care & Rehab Center

315 West Electric Avenue, McAlester, OK 74501 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 100 certified beds · (918) 423-4661 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (918) 423-4661 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Nov 2024
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2024
  • it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
  • about 18% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies

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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 3 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
2206 N Main St · (918) 420-9340 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
2009 N Main St · (918) 302-9996 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
2719 N Main St · (918) 426-4587 · Call to confirm hours
Park
A Street and, W Springer Ave · (918) 421-4922 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 to 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.

Overall rating5★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased5.7%13.6%15.4%better
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight0.6%3.3%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%1.9%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%2.8%2.0%better
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms35.4%3.4%6.5%check this — see note marked dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.1%0.1%better
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.4%4.7%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened3.2%13.7%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication36.8%25.7%18.9%worse
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%94.6%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers2.0%4.7%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control15.4%17.1%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table9.2%17.5%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.8%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine84.4%74.1%79.4%typical
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission28.9%27.3%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit19.6%16.6%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days3.192.311.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.752.961.80worse

This value is several times the typical-state benchmark. It can be real, or it can be a coding artifact in what the facility submitted. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

50.5% 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 33 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

50.5%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
11.2%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
0.29U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.16hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.06hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.29 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 44% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF50.5%CMS range 35.5–64.651.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF11.2%CMS range 7.3–17.010.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 dischargenot 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 dischargenot 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 dischargenot 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 identified96.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalizationnot 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 SNFs1.201.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.55
RN hours/ resident / day
0.72
LPN hours/ resident / day
3.15
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.42
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.35
RN hoursweekends
49.3%
Total nursing turnover
62.5%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 100 beds and averages 68.2 residents a day — about 68% occupied, or roughly 32 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 4.42 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.552 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.15 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 3.83 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.65 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.64 to 0.35 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 49% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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

4
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-03-27)
5
at the previous standard inspection (2023-11-30)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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

14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-03-27 · 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 ensure residents were educated and offered the opportunity to create an advance directive for 4 (#16, 17, 56, and #58) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for advance directives. The administrator identified 57 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #16's electronic health records showed no advance directive information had been provided. 2. Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #17's electronic health records showed no advance directive information had been provided. 3. Resident #56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #56's electronic heath record showed no advanced directive information had been provided. 4. Resident #58 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #58's electronic health records showed no advanced directive information had been provided. On 03/25/25 at 3:17 p.m., the…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-27 · tag F0637 — isolated
    Assess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a significant change assessment was completed within 14 days of electing the hospice benefit for 1 (#60) of 1 sampled resident who was reviewed for hospice services. The administrator identified 57 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #60 had diagnosis which included senile degeneration of the brain. A physician's order, dated 01/16/25, showed Resident #60 was admitted to hospice. Resident #60's quarterly assessment, dated 02/05/25, did not show hospice while a resident. A significant change assessment was not located in the residents electronic health record. On 03/25/25 at 9:43 a.m., the ADON stated Resident #60 was admitted to hospice services on 01/16/25. On 03/25/25 at 9:44 a.m., the ADON stated a significant change assessment had not been completed for Resident #60 after they were admitted to hospice. They stated the assessment should have been completed after the resident admitted to hospice care.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-27 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to update a care plan for 1 (#60) of 1 sampled resident for hospice services. The administrator identified 57 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A facility policy titled Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plan, dated 10/23/19, read in part, Upon a Change in Condition, the Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plan or Baseline Care Plan will be updated. Resident #60 had diagnosis which included senile degeneration of the brain. A physician's order, dated 01/16/25, showed Resident #60 was admitted to hospice. There was no documentation in Resident #60's care plan to reflect they had been admitted to hospice care. On 03/26/25 at 9:47 a.m., the ADON stated Resident #60's care plan had not been updated to reflect them being admitted to hospice.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-03-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure infection control was maintained for 1 (#16) of 13 residents sampled for infection control during the administration of medications. The administrator identified 57 residents resided in the facility. Findings: On 03/26/25 at 1:02 p.m., CMA #1 was observed popping Resident #16's gabapentin (an anticonvulsant) from the blister pack into their bare hand. On 03/26/25 at 1:04 p.m., Resident #16 was observed dropping their tramadol (an opioid analgesic) tablet on their shirt while attempting to take both medications. CMA #1 was observed to immediately pick up the tablet from the resident's shirt with their bare hands and returned it to the medication cup. On 03/26/25 at 1:05 p.m., Resident #16 took both of their medications as administered. An undated facility policy titled Emergency Pharmacy Services, read in part, Does not handle pills with bare hands. Resident #16 had diagnosis which included chronic pain syndrome. A physician's order, dated 10/29/24, showed gabapentin capsule 300 mg, give one capsule by…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-01-16 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
    Ensure 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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure electrical outlets on both the East and [NAME] side hallways, nurses' stations, and living room areas had protective plates covering them. The administrator identified 60 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Safe Homelike Environment policy, dated 04/28/2022, read in parts, In accordance with residents' rights, the facility will provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment .'Environment' refers to any environment in the facility that is frequented by residents, including (but not limited to) the residents' rooms, bathrooms, hallways, dining areas, lobby, outdoor patios, therapy areas and activity areas .6. a. The maintenance Director will perform periodic rounds to ensure functioning lights .9. General Considerations: f. Report any environmental concerns to the Administrator. 1. Res #1 had diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease and cognitive communication deficit. A significant change in status assessment, dated 05/15/24, documented the resident's cognition was severely…

    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 · D2024-11-05 · 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

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a residents were free from abuse for two (#3 and #4) of four sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The DON identified 52 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An Abuse Prevention policy, revised 10/21/22, read in part, The facility is committed to protecting the residents from abuse by anyone including, but not necessarily limited to: facility staff .Mental Abuse: The use of verbal or non-verbal conduct which causes or has the potential to cause the resident to experience humiliation, intimidation, fear, shame 1. Resident #3 had diagnoses which included major depressive disorder and morbid obesity. A 5-day resident assessment, dated 09/09/24, documented Resident #3's cognition was moderately impaired. It documented the resident made themselves understood and was able to understand others. On 11/05/24 at 2:35 p.m., Resident #3 was asked how they were treated by staff. They reported CNA #1 would talk mean to them and called them disgusting. Resident #3 stated it made them feel bad and they were glad CNA #1 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-05 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolated
    Timely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
    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 report an allegation of abuse to the proper authorities for one (#2) of four sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The administrator reported there were 52 residents residing in the facility. Findings: An Abuse Prevention policy, revised 10/21/24, read in parts, The Administrator, or designee, shall report any allegations of abuse .to the Department of Health as required. Resident #2 had diagnoses that included muscle weakness, lack of coordination, and chronic respiratory failure. A MDS, dated [DATE], documented Resident #2 required one person assistance for hygiene and dressing, experienced shortness of breath with exertion, was oxygen dependent, and was currently using a wheelchair for mobility. A formal complaint submitted to the OSDH on 08/15/24 alleged that LPN #1 had been abusive towards Resident #2. The report documented Resident #2 had asked LPN #1 to get them a cup of coffee. It documented LPN #1 went and got a wheelchair, put it in the…

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

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-05 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolated
    Respond appropriately to all alleged violations.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to investigate an allegation of abuse for one (#2) of four sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The administrator reported there were 52 residents residing in the facility. Findings: An Abuse Prevention policy, revised 10/21/22, read in part, The facility will initiate at the time of any finding of potential abuse or neglect an investigation .and provide protection to any alleged victims to prevent harm during the continuance of the investigation. Resident #2 had diagnoses which included muscle weakness, lack of coordination, and chronic respiratory failure. A formal complaint submitted to the OSDH on 08/15/24 alleged that LPN #1 had been abusive towards Resident #2. The report documented Resident #2 had asked LPN #1 to get them a cup of coffee. It documented LPN #1 went and got a wheelchair, put it in the resident's doorway, and told the resident if they wanted a cup of coffee they would have to get it themselves. It documented LPN #1's response was considered abusive. On 11/05/24 at 2:35 p.m., LPN #1 reported they 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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-07-23 · tag F0730 — pattern
    Observe each nurse aide's job performance and give regular training.
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete nurse aide performance reviews at least yearly for 18 of 22 nurse aides employed by the facility. The administrator identified 22 full time nurse aides currently employed by the facility. Findings: An employee list documented 22 staff members currently working as certified nurse aides. On 07/22/24 at 3:17 p.m., the administrator provided documentation regarding a nurse aide skills performance checklist for four certified nurse aides currently working for the facility. On 07/22/24 at 4:00 p.m., the administrator stated only four of the 22 nurse aides currently working had a completed performance review. The administrator stated a previous employee had not completed the required task for all certified nurse aides.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-30 · tag F0561 — failed to honor residents' choices — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to and the facility must promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice.
    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 provide assistance with transportation to a scheduled physician appointment for one (#24) of one sampled resident reviewed for transportation. The administrator identified 60 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: A document titled [NAME] Manor Transportation Policy documented .[NAME] Manor will plan for transportation for all residents that reside at [NAME] Manor . Res #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included infection and inflammatory reaction due to internal joint prosthesis, chronic pain, and diabetes. A form titled Appointment NOV. 27---DEC. 2 documented the resident had an appointment scheduled on 11/27/23 at 1:00 p.m. On 11/27/23 at 11:21 a.m., the resident stated they had a doctor appointment scheduled for today, but couldn't make it. The resident stated they were informed there was no staff available for transportation. On 11/28/23 at 3:40 p.m., the social service staff stated the resident had a doctor…

    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 before2023-11-30 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the code status was identified and correct for one (#12) of one resident whose code status was reviewed. The administrator identified 60 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: Res #12 was admitted to the facilty on 06/05/17 with diagnoses which included dementia and diabetes. A form titled ''Oklahoma DNR'' was signed by the resident's POA on 06/06/17. The EHR documented the resident's code was full code. A physician order, dated 03/24/20, documented the resident's code status was a full code. On 11/30/23 at 9:29 a.m., the DON stated they miss-understood the new regulations regarding advanced directives and the DNR was revoked.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-30 · tag F0645 — isolated
    PASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
    What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete correctly a PASARR level l evaluation for one (#11) of three residents reviewed for PASARR. The administrator identified 60 resident's resided in the facility. Findings: Res #11 was admitted to the facility with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. The EHR documented the resident was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder on 08/02/18. A PASSARR level l screen, dated 09/17/18, documented the resident did not have a diagnosis of a serious mental illness. A referral was not made to the state agency. On 11/29/23 at 10:35 a.m., the DON reviewed the PASARR level l and stated the form was not completed correctly. The DON stated a referral should have made to the state agency with the admitting diagnosis of major depressive disorder and with the new diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-30 · tag F0658 — failed to meet professional standards of care — isolated
    Ensure services provided by the nursing facility meet professional standards of quality.
    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, it was determined the facility failed to ensure professional accepted standards of quality were met related to a mental health diagnoses given to one (#34) of five sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medication and diagnoses. The administrator identified 60 residents who reside in the facility. Findings: Res #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses which included anxiety, insomnia, dementia with behavioral disturbances, and delusional disorders. On 08/31/22, the physician ordered risperidone (an antipsychotic medication) 0.25 mg at bedtime. A quarterly assessment, dated 06/21/23, documented the resident had no diagnoses of schizophrenia. On 06/24/23, the physician documented, the resident had a new diagnoses of schizophrenia. An annual assessment, dated 09/11/23, documented the resident had a diagnoses of schizophrenia. On 11/30/23 at 8:55 a.m., the DON stated the physician just added the diagnoses of schizophrenia on 06/24/23 for the medication,…

    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 · D2023-11-30 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    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 the physician was notified and interventions in place for weight loss for one (#54) of one sampled resident reviewed for nutrition. The administrator identified 60 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: Res #54 was admitted on [DATE] and had diagnoses which included displaced avulsion fracture/chip fracture of right talus, osteoarthritis, depression, and malignant neoplasm of tongue. A admission assessment, dated 08/03/23, documented the resident was cognitively intact and required minimal assistance with ADLs. The assessment also documented the resident's weight was 181 pounds. The vital sign record, dated 10/18/23, documented a weight of 153.6 pounds. A dietary note, dated 10/23/23, documented a recommendation of health shakes twice a day between meals related to weight loss. A quarterly assessment, dated 11/03/23, documented the resident had a weight of 152 pounds and a weight loss of 5% or more in the last month or…

    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

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to MGM HEALTHCARE — 27 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 52.3+1.7 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.4+1.6 vs chain
Staffing 3 of 51.7+1.3 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 53.6+0.4 vs chain
The other 26 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.3★, per CMS)
1 of 5Arbor Hills Care & Rehab CenterFerguson, MO 1 of 5Bentwood Nursing & RehabFlorissant, MO 1 of 5Broadway Care & Rehab CenterMuskogee, OK 1 of 5Florissant Valley Health & Rehabilitation CenterFlorissant, MO 1 of 5Lansdowne VillageSaint Louis, MO 1 of 5Leisure Village Health Care CenterTulsa, OK 1 of 5Normandy Nursing CenterSaint Louis, MO 1 of 5Quarters At Des Peres, TheDes Peres, MO 1 of 5South Pointe Rehabilitation and Care CenterOklahoma City, OK 1 of 5Springfield Skilled Care CenterSpringfield, MO 1 of 5St Sophia Health & Rehabilitation CenterFlorissant, MO 2 of 5Eastgate Village Care & Rehab CenterMuskogee, OK 2 of 5Heritage Villa Care & Rehab CenterBartlesville, OK 2 of 5Sherbrooke VillageSaint Louis, MO 2 of 5Spring Valley Health & Rehabilitation CenterSpringfield, MO 2 of 5Sunset Health Care CenterUnion, MO 2 of 5Walnut Grove Care & Rehab CenterMcAlester, OK 3 of 5Forest Hills Care And Rehabilitation CenterBroken Arrow, OK 3 of 5Fort Gibson Care & Rehab CenterFort Gibson, OK 3 of 5Oak Park Care CenterSaint Louis, MO 4 of 5Cleveland Care And Rehab CenterCleveland, OK 4 of 5Coweta Care & Rehab CenterCoweta, OK 4 of 5Jackson ManorJackson, MO 4 of 5Rainbow Health Care Community And Rainbow AssistedBristow, OK 4 of 5Seminole Care And Rehabilitation CenterSeminole, OK 5 of 5Camelot Nursing And Rehabilitation CenterFarmington, MO

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
OK SNF HOLDINGS, LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST50%since 01/09/2024
OK SNF INVESTMENTS, LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST50%since 01/09/2024
JFB OK TRUSTOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST50%since 01/09/2024
SOUTHEAST VENTURES TRUSTOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST48%since 01/09/2024
HILL, ELIZABETHIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 01/09/2024
FRIEDMAN, NAFTALIIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/09/2024

4 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$6.0M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-4.8%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$1.1M
Related-party expense18% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 64%Medicare 7%Other / private 29%

This home reported $1.1M paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 18% 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

$277per resident / day
operating cost
$8,434per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$265per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Oklahoma
$7,026/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$7,756/mo
Nursing home (private)
$6,150/mo
Assisted living

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 375512. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-03-27, 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.

What to do next