Shattuck Nursing Center
211 North Alfalfa, Shattuck, OK 73858 · For profit - Corporation · 60 certified beds · (580) 938-2501 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
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) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 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 held steady at 1 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 | 19.4% | 13.6% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.3% | 3.3% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 5.5% | 1.9% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 8.0% | 2.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.9% | 3.4% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 6.8% | 0.1% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.8% | 4.7% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 12.8% | 13.7% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 33.6% | 25.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 91.3% | 94.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.6% | 4.7% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 9.4% | 17.1% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 32.0% | 17.5% | 17.1% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.70 | 2.31 | 1.67 | typical |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 6.71 | 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.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 60 beds and averages 44.3 residents a day — about 74% occupied, or roughly 16 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.67 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.25 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.74 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 3.27 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.83 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.28 to 0.18 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2024-10-24 · tag F0640 — patternEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
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 resident assessments were completed and submitted to CMS for nine (#13, 17, 21, 23, 25, 37, 40, 42, and #45) of 13 sampled residents who were reviewed for resident assessments. The DON identified 45 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #21's Annual Assessment, dated 09/15/24, documented the ARD was 09/15/24. Sections B, C, D, F, GG, J, L, M, N, P, and Q did not contain any data. Section Z0400 did not contain any signatures documenting the assessment had been completed. On 10/24/24 at 5:34 p.m., MDS #1 stated Resident #21's assessment was not completed. 2. Resident #13's Quarterly Assessment, dated 08/29/24, documented the ARD was 08/29/24. Section Z0500 documented the DON signed the assessment 09/12/24. A MDS Final Validation Report, dated 10/22/24, documented Resident #13's assessment was submitted late (more than 14 days after section Z0500.) On 10/24/24 at 5:30 p.m., MDS #1 stated Resident #13's assessment was not submitted timely. 3. Resident #17's Quarterly Assessment, dated 09/07/24,…
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 before2024-10-24 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
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 resident assessments were accurate for two (#15 and #30) of 13 sampled residents whose resident assessments were reviewed for accuracy. The DON identified 45 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument, dated October 2023, documented alternative medicine products were considered as a dietary supplement. It documented medications such as melatonin should not be counted as a medication. 1. Resident #15 had diagnoses which included insomnia. An Order Summary Report, dated 04/20/24, documented Resident #15 received melatonin at bedtime for insomnia. Resident #15's quarterly assessment, dated 08/10/24, documented the resident received a hypnotic. 2. Resident #30 had diagnoses which included insomnia. An Order Summary Report, dated 03/20/24, documented Resident #30 received melatonin at bedtime for insomnia. Resident #30's quarterly assessment, dated 06/30/24, documented the resident received a hypnotic. On 10/25/24 at 4:40 p.m., MDS #1 was asked how…
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 · E2024-10-24 · tag F0642 — patternEnsure a qualified health professional conducts resident assessments.
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 resident assessments were not back dated for three (#23, 37 and #45) of 13 sampled residents who were reviewed for resident assessments. The DON identified 45 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #23's Quarterly Assessment, dated 08/25/24, documented the ARD was 08/25/24. Section Z0500 documented the DON signed the assessment was completed on 09/08/24. Section Z0400 documented MDS #1 completed sections A-E, GG, and H-Q on 10/03/24. 2. Resident #37's Quarterly Assessment, dated 09/05/24, documented the ARD was 09/05/24. Section Z0500 documented the DON signed the assessment was completed on 09/19/24. Section Z0400 documented the DON completed sections A-E, GG, and H-Q on 10/22/24. 3. Resident #45's Quarterly Assessment, dated 08/29/24, documented the ARD was 08/29/24. Section Z0500 documented the DON signed the assessment was completed on 09/12/24. Section Z0400 documented the DON completed sections A-E, GG, and H-Q on 10/03/24. On 10/24/24 at 4:36 p.m., the DON and MDS #1 were asked how…
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 · E2024-10-24 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure care plans were updated for use of alarms for one (#3) and failed to ensure the care plan specified what behaviors were being treated with psychotropic medications for one (#30) of eight sampled residents whose care plans were reviewed for behaviors and alarms. The DON identified 45 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #3 had diagnoses which included senile degeneration of the brain. An Order Summary Report, dated 05/23/24, documented the resident had an order for a fall alert monitor device. Resident #3's quarterly assessment, dated 07/20/24, documented the resident's cognition was severely impaired. It documented a bed and chair alarm were used. A Care Plan, dated 10/03/24, did not document an alarm was utilized. On 10/24/24 at 3:55 p.m., the DON stated the care plan did not address the alarms. 2. Resident #30 had diagnoses which included psychosis. An Order Summary Report, dated 03/20/24, documented the resident received Seroquel (antipsychotic medication). Resident #30's quarterly assessment,…
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 · E2024-10-24 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — patternProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow their protocol and the resident's care plan by not completing weekly wound assessments for one (#15) of two sampled residents reviewed for pressure ulcer care. The Resident Matrix, dated 10/22/24, documented two residents had pressure ulcers. Findings: An undated Wound Care Protocol, documented wounds would be drawn and documented on the pressure ulcer chart and documented in the skin assessment book every Saturday. Resident #15 had diagnoses which included pressure ulcer. Resident #15's Care Plan, dated 05/29/24, documented to follow the facility's protocol, assess, record, and monitor wound healing weekly. A Weekly Observation Tool, dated 09/11/24, documented the resident had a stage three pressure ulcer to their right hip and a stage two pressure ulcer to their left hip. This was the last documented weekly wound assessment. On 10/24/24 at 9:55 a.m., Resident #15's skin was observed with LPN #1. LPN #1 stated they completed skin assessments weekly. They stated they are behind on them. They 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 · D2024-10-24 · 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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified when a medication was unavailable for one (#44) of five sampled residents reviewed for medications. The DON stated 45 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #44 had diagnoses which included Huntington's disease. An Order Summary Report, dated 03/25/24, documented to give Austredo (VMAT2 inhibitor medication) 24 mg daily, and another order, dated 04/08/24, documented to give Austredo 6 mg daily. Both medications were to treat Huntington's disease. Resident #44's quarterly assessment, dated 08/21/24, documented the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. A CMA Medications report, dated September 2024, documented the resident did not receive either one of the Austredo medications for 18 out of 30 days. A CMA Medications report, dated October 2024, documented the resident did not receive either one of the Austredo medications for 22 out of 23 days. On 10/24/24 at 12:46 p.m., CMA #1 was asked what they knew about Resident #44's Austredo medication. They stated the pharmacy…
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 · D2024-10-24 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 medication was available for one (#44) of five sampled residents reviewed for medications. The DON stated 45 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #44 had diagnoses which included Huntington's disease. An Order Summary Report, dated 03/25/24 documented to give Austredo (VMAT2 inhibitor medication) 24 mg daily, and another order, dated 04/08/24, documented to give Austredo 6 mg daily. Both medications were to treat Huntington's disease. Resident #44's quarterly assessment, dated 08/21/24, documented the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. A CMA Medications report, dated September 2024, documented the resident did not receive either one of the Austredo medications for 18 out of 30 days. A CMA Medications report, dated October 2024, documented the resident did not receive either one of the Austredo medications for 22 out of 23 days. On 10/24/24 at 12:46 p.m., CMA #1 was asked what they knew about Resident #44's Austredo medication. They stated the pharmacy could not fill it because insurance…
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 · E2023-08-04 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
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 provide privacy for two (#11 and #13) of five sampled residents reviewed for privacy. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 08/01/23, documented 31 residents resided in the facility. Seven residents had seizure disorders. Findings: A Notice of Privacy Practices policy, dated 04/14/03, read in parts, .[Name of facility] may use your health information for purposes of providing you treatment .[Name of facility] has established a policy to guard against unnecessary disclosure of your health information . 1. Resident #11 had diagnoses which included epilepsy, and conversion disorder with seizures or convulsions. On 08/02/23 at 2:46 p.m., a Seizure Disorder sign was observed hanging on the wall above Resident #11's bed and was visible from the hallway door. 2. Resident #13 had diagnoses which included unspecified convulsions, persistent vegetative state, and aphasia. On 08/02/23 at 2:38 p.m., a Seizure Disorder sign was observed hanging on the wall above Resident #13's bed and was visible…
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 · E2023-08-04 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to: a. ensure staff were aware of the system used to identify CPR/DNR status, and b. ensure clinical health records correctly identified CPR/DNR status for three (#3, 17 and #19) of twelve sampled residents reviewed for advanced directives. The Resident Census and Condition of Residents report, dated [DATE], documented 31 residents resided in the facility. Five residents had advanced directives. Findings: A Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions policy, dated [DATE], read in parts, .Do Not Resuscitate Orders . A Resident's request to have a DNR Order entered on the chart is to be noted in the medical record .The DNR order should be communicated to all relevant healthcare providers and documented in the Resident's Care Plan .If the Resident or family consent, a DNR wristband could be used to assist identifying the Resident who has a current DNR order. If a DNR wristband is not allowed, a sticker on the resident's chart will be used to identify…
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 before2023-08-04 · tag F0641 — patternEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure MDS assessments were accurate for two (#7 and #23) of 12 residents sampled for accuracy of MDS assessments. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 08/01/23, documented 31 residents resided in the facility. The DON identified nine residents used oxygen. Findings: 1. Resident #7 had diagnoses of atherosclerosis and heart failure. A Physician Order, dated 11/10/22, read in part, .02 at 0.5 L via n.c at HS . An Annual Assessment, dated 07/05/23, did not document oxygen therapy was used during the 14 day look back. On 08/02/23 at 4:01 p.m., the MDS Coordinator was asked about Resident # 7's respiratory orders. They stated Resident # 7 had orders for supplemental oxygen at night prescribed since 11/10/22. They were asked what the date was of most recent MDS. They stated it was on 07/05/23. They were asked if section O documented Oxygen therapy, They stated, No, it does not document oxygen by nursing on the TAR,so I did not…
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 · D2023-08-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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 maintain infection control during medication observation for two (#17, and #28) of four sampled residents reviewed during medication observation. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 08/01/23, documented 31 residents resided in the facility. 1. Resident #17 had diagnoses which included high blood pressure, chronic kidney disease, and abnormal coagulation profile. 2. Resident #28 had diagnoses which included high blood pressure, dementia, and anxiety. On 08/03/23 at 7:04 a.m., CMA #1 was observed to remove the b/p cuff from the top of the cart and obtained a blood pressure on Resident #17. CMA #1 was observed to return to the medication cart and placed the b/p cuff on top of the cart. CMA #1 was not observed to sanitize the b/p cuff. On 08/03/23 at 7:19 a.m., CMA #1 was observed to remove the b/p cuff from the top of the cart and obtained a blood pressure on Resident #28. CMA #1 was observed to return to the medication cart and placed the b/p cuff on top of the cart. CMA #1 was not…
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 · D2023-08-04 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
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 administer a pneumococcal vaccination for one (#32) of five sampled residents reviewed for immunizations. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents documented 31 residents resided in the facility and 21 residents had receive the pneumococcal vaccination. Findings: An undated, Influenza/Pneumonia Vaccines policy, read in parts, .It is the intent of [name of facility] to follow the guidelines of the CDC and ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) on the administration of the influenza and pneumococcal vaccines to their residents with written consent from the residents' POA, representative or the resident, upon admittance to the facility and annually as indicated . Findings: Resident #32 had diagnoses which included, dementia, thrombocytopenia, and high blood pressure. A [Name of Facility] vaccination consent form, dated 05/26/23, documented the Resident's power of attorney had signed for Resident #32 to be administered the pneumococcal vaccination. An admission Assessment, dated 06/05/23,…
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 · F2022-06-24 · tag F0838 — failed to assess facility resources and resident needs — widespreadConduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations (including nights and weekends) and emergencies.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a facility risk assessment had been completed and updated. The DON identified 36 residents resided in the facility. Findings: On 06/24/22 at 8:20 a.m., the BOM was asked to provide the most currant facility assessment that had been completed. They provided two binders, an emergency management binder and a Facility Assessment Compliance Tool binder. The FACT book contained an assessment, dated 2017, last signed by the previous administrator. The BOM was asked if there was another date. They stated they would look for another book. On 06/24/22 at 8:32 a.m., the BOM returned and stated they did not find additional information.
- Potential for harm · E2022-06-24 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — patternHave a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to have a RN eight consecutive hours a day for three of 22 days in June 2022. The DON reported 36 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The nursing schedule from June 1st through June 22nd, 2022, did not document a RN on June 11th, 12th, and 19th. On 06/22/22 at 2:09 p.m., the BOM and DON were asked if there was a RN for eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week. The BOM stated, There is a RN here almost all the time. They were asked to provide documentation of RN coverage for June 11th, 12th, and 19th. On 06/22/22 at 2:28 p.m., the BOM was not able to provide the documentation. They stated the administrator, who was also an RN, was here for seven hours on June 19th.
“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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BROWN, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 07/31/1990 |
| DOUT, ALEXANDER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2002 |
| FOGLE, KIMBERLY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2002 |
| BOHNSACK, BERNICE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 08/15/1995 |
| HELFENBEIN, CANDICE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/22/2024 |
| HILL, DEBRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 05/16/2007 |
| JACOBS, AMBER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/29/2016 |
| JACONS, BRADLEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 02/17/2025 |
| KUHLMAN, GLENNELL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/01/2015 |
| STUART, DANNA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2020 |
| WATSON, KASANDRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 10/17/2022 |
| ALLSHIFTS | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 12/01/2022 |
| FORVIS MAZARS LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/28/2015 |
| NUTRITION SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/09/2024 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 17 rows in the source record cover these 14 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 74% 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 $44K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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
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 375564. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-10-24, 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.