New Hope Retirement & Care 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.

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.

54.8% 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 27 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 70.0% 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 20 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.29 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 45% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 2% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 55 beds and averages 37.4 residents a day — about 68% occupied, or roughly 18 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 4.00 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.36 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.00 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 3.63 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.15 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.40 to 0.26 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 73% is well above the national median of 45%.

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

Inspection trend

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

Inspection deficiencies

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

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

27 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 16 are one tap away and print in full.

• Actual harm · G2024-07-31 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
  Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
  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 provide treatment and services to prevent worsening of a pressure ulcer for one (#4) of four sampled residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. The LPN #1 identified two residents with pressure ulcers. Findings: A facility pressure ulcer policy and procedure read in part, the facility will provide care based on each resident's comprehensive assessment to ensure that a resident who enters the facility with pressure ulcers does not develop pressure ulcers unless pressure ulcers are unavoidable. The policy also read, aggressive and appropriate preventative measures and care are provided to address a resident's unique risk factors. Res #4 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included peripheral vascular disease, osteoporosis, and fracture of part of the neck of right femur. A care plan, dated 07/15/24, documented to assess skin condition and treat as needed. A nursing note, dated 07/15/24, documented a small pressure area…

  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 · E2025-12-31 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — pattern
  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 ensure a physician's order was followed for 1 (#42) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for respiratory care.The administrator identified one resident used a BIPAP machine.Findings: On 12/29/25 at 2:53 p.m., Res #42 was observed resting in bed, stated they were taking a nap. Res #42's BIPAP machine was not turned on, and the mask was sitting on the resident's bedside table. On 12/30/25 at 2:04 p.m., Res #42 was observed resting in bed with their eyes closed. Res #42's BIPAP machine was not turned on. The mask was observed sitting on the resident's bedside table.On 12/31/25 at 8:52 a.m., Res #42 was observed resting in bed with their eyes closed. Res #42's BIPAP machine was not turned on. The mask was observed sitting on the bedside resident's bedside table.A physician order, dated 07/14/25, showed BIPAP oxygen at 3 LPM at HS and while taking naps.On 12/31/25 at 2:21 p.m., RN #1 stated the resident should have had the BIPAP on during naps.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-12-31 · tag F0802 — failed to prepare enough nourishing food — pattern
  Provide sufficient support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff received training in safe food handling practices for the prevention of foodborne illness for 2 (Cook #3 and Dietary Aide #3) of 7 dietary staff reviewed for staff training. The administrator identified 37 residents received meals from the dietary department. Findings:On 12/22/25 at 11:10 a.m., the dietary manager was asked for verification of food handlers training for all dietary staff.On 12/30/25 at 3:00 p.m., the administrator submitted copies of food handlers training certificates for five of the seven dietary staff. The administrator stated cook #1 and dietary aide #3 had not received the required training.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-12-31 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — pattern
  Ensure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
  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 menu for 1 of 1 meal services observed.The administrator identified 37 residents received nutrition from the kitchen.Findings:On 12/22/25 at 12:30 p.m., chicken fried steak, mashed potatoes and gravy, cream corn, dinner roll and pineapple crisp was observed to be served for the noon meal. The menu for week five showed crumb crusted chicken, savory rice, Brussel sprouts, dinner roll and pineapple crisp.An undated policy titled, Menu Substitution, read in part, menu substitutions will be recorded on a substitution record form. The reason for the change will also be noted. On 12/22/25 at 12:30 p.m., the dietary manager stated they were working off of the week five menu this week and had to substitute items due to not having the menu items available. The dietary manager stated they did not document substitutions or specific reasons for substitutions and did not have a form that they were aware of.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-12-31 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
  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:a. prepared food items were labelled with the preparation and use-by dates,b. food items were discarded after the expiration dates,c. temperature logs were accurate and completed for refrigerators and freezers,d. food temperatures were checked and logged for prepared food items, e. food was prepared in a sanitary environment, andf. food was not stored on the floor in dry storage area. The administrator identified 37 residents received nutrition from the kitchen. Findings:On 12/22/25 at 9:48 a.m., the following observations were made in the double door refrigerator in the kitchen:a. a container of prepared coleslaw with a manufacturer use by date of 12/13/25. b. a container of cottage cheese with a manufacturer use by date of 11/15/25. c. two plastic pitchers with lids with juice type liquid contents without label, preparation or use by datesOn 12/22/25 at 9:59 a.m., a log sheet titled Daily Refrigerator and Freezer Temperature Log, dated December 2025, was reviewed. There was no documentation of…

  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 · Dcited before2025-12-31 · 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

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of abuse was reported to the state agency within the 2-hour required time frame for 1 (#25) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The administrator identified 37 residents resided in the facility. Findings:An undated facility policy titled Abuse Prohibition, read in part, the facility shall report all alleged violations and all substantial incidents to the state agency.An admission assessment, dated 12/21/24, showed Resident #25 had diagnoses which included unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbances, hyperlipidemia, anxiety disorder, and migraines.An allegation of abuse, reported to the facility administrator on 12/17/25, showed a facility staff member was observed to be rough while assisting Res #25 to a chair and spoke loudly to the resident. This allegation of abuse was not reported to the OSDH.On 12/31/25 at 12:10 p.m., the administrator stated the abuse allegation incident was reported to them and it was immediately investigated, including camera review by the cooperate office. 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 · Dcited before2025-12-31 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure assessments were accurate for anticoagulation therapy for 1 (#25) of 4 sampled residents reviewed for resident assessments.The administrator identified 37 residents resided in the facility. Findings:A quarterly assessment, dated11/05/25, showed Resident #25 received anticoagulant therapy.Resident #25's medication administration record, dated November 2025, did not show an anticoagulant medication.On 12/31/25 at 12:42 p.m., the minimum data set coordinator stated Resident #25 did not take an anticoagulant medication. They stated the assessment was coded in error and would be modified.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-31 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
  Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
  What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the removal of expired medications and supplies from 1 of 1 medication rooms observed.The administrator reported 37 residents resided in the facility.Findings: On 12/31/25 at 1:15 p.m., the medication storage room was observed with RN #1. The following medications/supplies were observed to be expired:One box of 25-gauge needles with 3 ml syringe with an expiration date of 08/31/25,One box of 21-gauge needles with 3 ml syringe with an expiration date of 12/02/25,Four packets of Dyna Lube (a lubricating jelly) with an expiration date of 03/20/20,Eight tubes of lubricating jelly with an expiration date of 11/24/22,Eleven bisacodyl suppositories with an expiration date of 08/05/25,Six bisacodyl suppositories with an expiration date of 03/24/25.On 12/31/25 at 1:30 p.m., RN #1 stated the expired medications and supplies should have already been removed.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-12-31 · 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the water management plan to prevent waterborne pathogens had the participation of the infection preventionist. The administrator identified 37 residents resided in the facility.Findings:A facility policy titled Legionella Water Management Program, dated 1/2022, read in part, As part of the infection prevention control program, our facility has a water management program, which is overseen by the water management team. The document also showed:a. there was a water management team consisting of the infection preventionist, the administrator, the medical director or their designee, the director of maintenance, and the director of environmental services,b. a detailed description and diagram of the water system in the facility, including receiving, cold water distribution, heating, hot water distribution and waste, andc. the identification of areas in the water system that could encourage growth and spread waterborne bacteria.A facility cleaning schedule attached to the Legionella water management program for 2025,…

  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 · Ecited before2025-07-16 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — pattern
  Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure the physical environment was maintained in good repair.The administrator identified 39 residents resided in the facility.Findings:On 07/15/25 at 7:55 a.m., during a tour of the dining room, the ceiling was observed to have multiple ceiling tiles with large brown watermark stains.On 07/17/25 at 3:30 p.m., during a tour of the facility, resident rooms #2, #4, #17, and #28 were observed to have sagging white ceiling tiles. The ceiling tiles had brown watermark stains around and near the air vents.A policy titled Homelike Environment, revised February 2021, read in part, Residents are provided with a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment.On 07/17/25 at 3:42 p.m., the maintenance supervisor stated the sagging tiles with brown watermark stains were caused by water leaks from the roof. They stated the facility's roof leaked every time it rained. The maintenance supervisor stated they tried to change out the stained and sagging ceiling tiles often, but the roof needed to be permanently repaired.On…

  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 · D2025-07-16 · 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 comprehensive care plan was developed for indwelling urinary catheter care and maintenance for 1 (#2) of 2 residents sampled for indwelling urinary catheters.The administrator identified one resident with an indwelling urinary catheter.Findings:An undated medical diagnosis list showed Res #2 had diagnoses which included retention of urine and congenital bladder neck obstruction.A physician order, dated 08/07/24, showed to change the indwelling urinary catheter every 30 days and as needed and to perform catheter care every shift and as needed.A quarterly assessment, dated 08/21/24, showed Res #2 had a BIMS score of 12 and was cognitively intact. The assessment showed Res #2 had an indwelling urinary catheter.Res #2's care plan was reviewed. There was no documentation for indwelling urinary catheter care and maintenance shown on the care plan.On 07/15/25 at 4:35 p.m., the MDS coordinator stated a comprehensive care plan for urinary catheter care and maintenance had not been developed for Res #2, but should have been.

  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

$7,371 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

• $7,371 — penalty dated 2024-07-31

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.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

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

Follow the money — this home’s finances

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

About 84% 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 $180K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in OK