Perry Green Valley Nursing Center, LLC
1103 Birch Street, Perry, OK 73077 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 112 certified beds · (580) 336-2285 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- the CMS record shows $8,278 in federal fines (most recent 2025-05-30)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 4 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 13.2% | 13.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.7% | 3.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.6% | 1.9% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.4% | 2.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 5.0% | 3.4% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 7.0% | 4.7% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 8.5% | 13.7% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.3% | 25.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 94.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.9% | 4.7% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.4% | 17.1% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.7% | 17.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.8% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 21.5% | 27.3% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 18.5% | 16.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.59 | 2.31 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.51 | 2.96 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
46.3% 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 46 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 85.7% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 21 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 0.12 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 7% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 1% 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
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 46.3%CMS range 34.0–60.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.5%CMS range 6.9–16.2 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 85.7% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 52.4% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 66.7% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 91.3% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS 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 setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not 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 stay | 8.7% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 4.3% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.4%CMS range 4.8–14.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.79 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 112 beds and averages 60.1 residents a day — about 54% occupied, or roughly 52 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.99 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.41 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.01 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 3.72 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.10 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.47 to 0.25 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 41% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
11 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-05-30 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident did not slide from a wheelchair onto the floor of a facility vehicle while being transported for 1 (#1) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for accident hazards. The administrator stated 61 residents resided at the facility. Findings: A facility policy titled Driving and Motor Vehicle Policy, dated 06/23/14, read in part, Driver is responsible for the safety of all passengers while providing transportation to persons to and from designated locations. If at any time the driver feels he/she is in an unsafe situation for the passenger or the vehicle, driver will have the right to exercise judgment to stop vehicle. [sic]. A care plan problem for Res #1 titled Falls, dated 10/20/23, read in part, Resident at risk for fall r/t [related to] impaired mobility, spinal stenosis, and dementia. An annual minimum data set assessment, dated 03/31/25, showed Res #1 had a brief interview for mental status score of 11 (this indicated the resident 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-06 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure chemicals were secured for three of five halls observed. The DON identified five halls in which residents resided. Findings: On 11/04/24 at 11:39 a.m., the utility room door on hall eight was observed to be unlocked. A bottle of bleach was observed in the unlocked utility room. LPN #4 stated the door was to be closed and locked due to chemicals. On 11/04/24 at 2:44 p.m., a can of disinfectant spray and a tube of Calmoseptine was observed to be unattended on hall seven by the shower room. The disinfectant spray label documented to store the product in an area inaccessible to small children. The Calmoseptine label was observed to document to keep out of reach of children. The door to the shower room was observed to be open. A four ounce bottle of derma daily moisturizing lotion and a box of 50 germicidal disposable wipes were observed to be unsecured and unattended. The labels on the bottle of lotion and the germicidal wipes documented to keep out of reach of children. On 11/04/24 at 2:51 p.m., LPN #3 stated they were…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-11-06 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were assessed for the use of bed rails prior to installation for four (#17, 30, 115, and #55) of four sampled residents who were reviewed for bed rails. The DON identified 24 residents who utilized bed rails. Findings: 1. Resident #17 had diagnoses which included Parkinson's disease. A physician order, dated 11/02/23, documented half side rails bilaterally for bed mobility. The Care Plan, dated 10/03/24, read in part, 1/2 side rails bilat upper bed for self repositioning. On 11/04/24 at 11:35 a.m., Resident #17's bed was observed to contain half side rails bilaterally. Review of the electronic clinical record did not reveal a consent had been completed for the use of bed rails. 2. Resident #30 had diagnoses which included muscle weakness. A physician order, dated 09/18/24, documented the resident may use half bed rails for position/mobility. Review of the care plan did not reveal the use of the bed rails. Review of the clinical record did not reveal a consent had been completed for the use 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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-11-06 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — patternEnsure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
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 residents were offered snacks for one (bedtime) of one snack time observed. The DON identified 63 residents who received nourishment from the kitchen. Findings: The undated Resident Meals/Snacks policy, read in part, Staff will pass out optional snacks to residents in-between meals. Residents may also request snacks or simple meals (soups, sandwich, etc.) after dining room hours. On 11/05/24 at 1:37 p.m., seven residents in the resident council meeting stated they were not offered bedtime snacks. On 11/05/24 at 8:04 p.m., the dietary staff were observed in the kitchen. A tour of the facility's nurses stations and resident rooms did not reveal snacks had yet been provided. On 11/05/24 at 8:13 p.m., cook #1 was observed to take a bowl with snacks in it to hall eight. On 11/05/24 at 8:39 p.m., Resident #18 requested a sandwich, chips, and a snack cake from a CNA. Resident #18 stated staff did not offer snacks, but they would ask for them for themselves and their roommate. On 11/05/24 at 8:43 p.m., CMA #1…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-11-06 · tag F0848 — patternProvide a neutral and fair arbitration process and agree to arbitrator and venue.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure arbitration agreements documented a location agreed upon by both parties. The administrator identified 63 residents who had signed binding arbitration agreements. Findings: The Mediation and Arbitration Agreement, dated 02/05/1951, read in part, Such mediation will be held in Tulsa or Oklahoma County, Oklahoma in a place agreed to by the parties On 11/06/24 at 3:36 p.m., the administrator stated arbitration would take place in either Tulsa or Oklahoma county. The administrator stated if Tulsa or Oklahoma county was not agreed upon by both parties they thought they could change to another location. The administrator stated they did not know why the arbitration agreement did not indicate arbitration could occur in a location agreeable to both parties.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-06 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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: a. ensure control measures and testing protocols were in place for monitoring for the potential presence of water-borne pathogen such as Legionella; and b. follow the enhanced barrier precautions policy for a resident on precautions for one (#6) of 16 sampled residents reviewed for infection control. The administrator identified 63 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An Infection prevention and control program policy, revised July 2024, read in part, Water Management: a. Control measures and testing protocols are in place to address potential hazards associated with the facility's water system. An Enhanced Barrier Precautions policy, revised April 2024, read in part, It is the policy of this facility to implement enhanced barrier precautions for the prevention of transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms. The policy also read, 'Enhanced barrier precautions' (EBP) refer to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employs targeted gown…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-11-06 · tag F0909 — failed to maintain a comfortable temperature — patternRegularly inspect all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails (if any) for safety; and all bed rails and mattresses must attach safely to the bed frame.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident beds were maintained and monitored for the use of bed rails for four (#17, 30, 115, and #55) of four sampled residents who were reviewed for bed rails. The DON identified 24 residents who utilized bed rails. Findings: The Bed Safety and Bed Rails policy, dated August 2022, read in part, Maintenance staff routinely inspects all beds and related equipment to identify risks and problems including potential entrapment risks. 1. Resident #17 had diagnoses which included Parkinson's disease. On 11/04/24 at 11:35 a.m., Resident #17's bed was observed to contain half side rails bilaterally. 2. Resident #30 had diagnoses which included muscle weakness. On 11/04/24 at 11:31 a.m., Resident #30 was observed in bed with half side rails in the up position bilaterally. 3. Resident #115 had diagnoses which included atrial fibrillation. On 11/04/24 at 1:12 p.m., Resident #115 was observed in bed with half side rails in the up position bilaterally. 4. Resident #55 had diagnoses which included muscle weakness…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-03-14 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 medications were not held without a physicians' order for one (#15) and a medication was available to be administered for one (#48) of 15 sampled residents observed during medication pass observation. Findings: A policy and procedure, titled, Administering Medications revised April 2019, read in part, .Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed .4. Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders, including any required time frame . 1. Res #15 had diagnoses which included, unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbances, and hypertension (high blood pressure). Res #15's Physician Order Report', dated 02/14/22 to 03/14/22, documented the resident was to receive metoprolol succinate 25mg extended release, and Losartan 100mg daily at 9:00 a.m. for hypertension. 2. Res #48 had diagnoses which included, recurrent erosion of cornea of the right eye and congestive heart failure. Res #48's Physician Order Report, dated 02/14/02 to 03/14/22, documented,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2022-03-14 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide 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 implement infection prevention/control protocols by ensuring catheter bags were not on the floor, gloves were changed as indicated during provision of incontinent care, and ensure catheter care was provided as an intervention to prevent UTI's for two (#28 and #37) of two sampled residents for catheter care. The DON identified two residents with Foley catheters. Findings: A policy and procedure, titled, Catheter Care, Urinary revised September 2014, read in part .The purpose of this procedure is to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections .review the resident's care plan to assess for any special needs of the resident .Infection Control .Be sure the catheter tubing and drainage bag are kept off the floor . 1. Resident #28 had diagnoses which included urinary tract infection, cerebral infarction (stroke) affecting right dominant side, and retention of urine. An admission assessment, dated 01/26/22, documented, resident #28 had moderate cognitive impairment, and required extensive assistance for bed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-03-14 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident representatives were notified of skin tears for one (#44) of one sampled resident who was reviewed for notification of change, and failed to consult with the physician before a significant blood pressure medication was held for one (#15) of 15 sampled residents observed during the medication pass. The facility identified five residents who had skin tears. The DON identified 49 residents resided in the facility and received medications. Findings: A policy and procedure, titled, Administering Medications revised April 2019, read in part, .Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed . Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders, including any required time frame . Resident #44 had diagnoses which included falls. An event and progress note, dated 03/06/22, documented the resident had a skin tear to his right second toe and had voiced he had ran over his toe with his wheelchair. The note documented the area was measured and cleaned. On 03/09/22…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2022-03-14 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were obtained and completed for a skin tear injury for one (#44) of one sampled resident who was reviewed for a non pressure skin condition. The facility identified five residents who had skin tears. Findings: Resident #44 had diagnoses which included falls. An event and progress note, dated 03/06/22, documented the resident had a skin tear to his right second toe and had voiced he had ran over his toe with his wheelchair. The note documented the area was measured and cleaned. On 03/09/22 at 09:12 a.m., the resident stated he cut his right second toe on the wheelchair. They stated the wheelchair had been repaired by a maintenance employee. The resident pulled his sock off and a adhesive covering was observed on his second toe. Resident #44 was asked how often the staff checked on it and applied bandages. He stated the nurse was supposed to come in and check on it. On 03/10/22 at 2:23 p.m., LPN #3 observed the right foot and removed the bandage on his second toe. Dried blood 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$8,278 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,278 — penalty dated 2025-05-30
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
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HMLC LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 06/05/2012 |
| CHAPPELL 2012 SUCCESSION TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 75% | since 06/05/2012 |
| GOLDEN AGE NURSING HOME OF GUTHRIE INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 8% | since 06/05/2012 |
| MARY LOU CHAPPELL TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 10% | since 01/01/2017 |
| WALLER, WILLIAM | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 02/03/2023 |
| HASTINGS, TANDIE | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/01/2007 |
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.
About 72% 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 $709K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 14% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in OK
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Oklahoma Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 375373. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-11-06, 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.