Skiatook Nursing Home,llc
318 South Cherry, Skiatook, OK 74070 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 70 certified beds · (918) 396-2149 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (59%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 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 | 4 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 | 13.9% | 13.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 3.3% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 5.4% | 1.9% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 2.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 3.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.8% | 4.7% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.8% | 13.7% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 36.3% | 25.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 89.7% | 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 | 10.4% | 17.1% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 10.0% | 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 | 40.3% | 27.3% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.1% | 16.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.84 | 2.31 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 5.76 | 2.96 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.15 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 12% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 24% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.42 | 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 70 beds and averages 38.5 residents a day — about 55% occupied, or roughly 32 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.50 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.33 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.29 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 4.38 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.55 on weekdays — 4% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.41 to 0.14 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 59% 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 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2022-05-12 · 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 On 05/05/22 at 5:17 p.m., the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) confirmed the existence of an immediate jeopardy related to smoking in the building while wearing oxygen. The facility did not have policies and procedures in place to address smoking material storage for residents who were on oxygen and/or who required supervision to smoke, and failed to assess/reassess residents for smoking safety. On 05/05/22 at 1:10 p.m., a resident who was blind was observed in their room wearing oxygen while smoking a cigarette. At 5:30 p.m., the administrator was informed of the existence of the immediate jeopardy. A request was made for an acceptable plan to remove the immediacy. On 05/06/22 at 10:00 a.m., the plan of removal was accepted by the OSDH. The plan of removal was as follows: 5.5.2022 7:30 PM Proposed IJ Plan of Removal Immediate action: Approximately 1:30 PM May 5, 2022, All residents were asked to produce all cigarette lighters until smoking assessments are completed and it is determined that 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-11-26 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for 2 (#1 and #2) of 3 sampled residents reviewed or abuse. The DON identified 32 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An undated facility policy titled Policy and Procedure Regarding Prohibition of Resident Abuse Including Corporal Punishment, Neglect and exploitation, read in part, Definitions: Abuse is the willing infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. An incident report, dated 07/28/25, showed CNA #2 reported to the administrator CNA #1 got in Resident #1's personal space and forced them to sit on the toilet. The report showed afterward Resident #1 pushed CNA #1, who then pushed the resident back. The report showed CNA #2 reported to the administrator CNA #1 rolled Resident #2 into the wall while changing the resident's bedding. The report showed Resident #2 hit their knees on the wall, causing some discoloration to their knees. 1.An undated admission form showed Resident #1 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 · D2025-11-26 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely 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 recognize and submit a report of abuse within 2 hours for 2 (#1 and #2) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The DON identified 32 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An undated policy titled Policy and Procedure Regarding Responsibility to Report Allegations of Resident abuse, suspected Criminal Acts, Injury of Unknown Source, Neglect, Misappropriations of Property, and Exploitation, read in part, It is the policy of this facility to act on all allegations of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, exploitation, injuries of unknow source and suspected criminal acts which include reporting the allegations within the prescribed time frame to the appropriate authorities.An initial incident report made to the OSDH, dated 07/28/25, showed CNA #2 witnessed incidents of abuse on 07/27/25. The report showed CNA #2 reported to the administrator CNA #1 got in Resident #1's personal space and forced them to sit on the toilet. The report showed afterward Resident #1 pushed CNA #1, who then pushed 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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-10-04 · 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 assessments were transmitted within seven days of completion for eight (#5, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21 and #92) of 14 sampled residents whose assessments were reviewed. The administrator identified 38 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #5 had diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The MDS 3.0 NH Final Validation Report, dated 09/30/24 documented the quarterly assessment, dated 08/11/24, had been submitted late. 2. Resident #11 had diagnoses which included cardiorespiratory conditions. The MDS 3.0 NH Final Validation Report, dated 09/30/24 documented the quarterly assessment, dated 08/27/24, had been submitted late. 3. Resident #15 had diagnoses which included depression. The MDS 3.0 NH Final Validation Report, dated 09/30/24 documented the quarterly assessment, dated 08/20/24, had been submitted late. 4. Resident #16 had diagnoses which included stroke. The MDS 3.0 NH Final Validation Report, dated 09/30/24 documented the quarterly assessment, dated 08/16/24, had been…
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 · E2024-10-04 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive care plans were accurate for two (#14 and #31) of three sampled residents who were reviewed for revision of care plans. The administrator identified 38 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #14 had diagnoses which included vascular dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dysphagia, and weight loss. The care plan, dated 08/21/24, did not address any issues with food, difficulty eating, or swallowing. A physician order, dated 09/28/24, documented an order for a speech evaluation. A speech evaluation, dated 09/28/24, determined a regular diet, regular texture, and thin consistency for fluids with compensatory strategies was appropriate. The compensatory strategies included chin tuck, effortful swallows, small bits, and reflux precautions. 2. Res #31 had diagnoses which included metabolic encephalopathy and dementia. A physician order, dated 05/10/24, documented an order for hydroxyzine HCl (antihistamine medication) oral tablet 25 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours as…
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 · D2024-10-04 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident assessment was accurate for one (#31) of 14 sampled residents whose resident assessments were reviewed. The administrator identified 38 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #31 had diagnoses which included metabolic encephalopathy, dementia, acute pain, and diabetes mellitus. A physician order, dated 05/17/24, documented an order for Cymbalta (SNRI medication) 60 mg. Give 1 capsule by mouth one time a day for depression. A physician assessment, dated July 2024, documented a diagnosis of anxiety. The MDS, dated [DATE], did not document a diagnosis of depression or anxiety. The care plan, dated 08/22/24, did not document a diagnosis of depression or anxiety. On 10/04/24 at 10:36 a.m., the administrator stated they were aware some resident MDS's and care plans were not updated. They stated they had a process in place and were trying to bring all records up to date.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-10-30 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to provide Notices of Medicare Non-Coverage for skilled services for three (#20, 21, #22) for three residents who were reviewed for beneficiary protection notification. The administrator identified three residents who had been discharged from medicare skilled services in the last six months. Findings: Resident #20 was admitted to Part A skilled services on 05/24/23, discharged from skilled services on 07/01/23 and remained in the facility. Resident #21 was admitted to Part A skilled services on 04/13/23, discharged from skilled services on 06/14/23 and left the facility. Resident #22 was admitted to Part A skilled services on 08/25/23, discharged from skilled services on 10/11/23 and left the facility On 10/30/23 at 2:30 p.m., the administrator was asked to provide the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC), for the three residents discharged in the last six months. They stated they would ask the business office manager for them. On 10/30/23 at 2:45 p.m., the business office manager stated that according to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-05-12 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — patternKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 residents were provided privacy during the provision of care for two (#22 and #34) of two sampled residents who were reviewed for privacy. The administrator identified 37 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #22 had diagnoses which included lymphedema and cellulitis of right lower limb. Physician orders, dated May 2022, documented the resident was to receive wound care to the left and right lower extremities every day shift and bilateral compression dressings on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, day shift. On 05/11/22 at 10:52 a.m., LPN #1 was observed initiating wound care to resident #22 without providing privacy by closing the resident's door. At 5:58 p.m., LPN #1 stated she had not shut the door to resident #22's room prior to initiating wound care because the care wasn't anything private, it was her legs. On 05/12/22 at 9:18 a.m., the DON stated the resident's door should have been closed during wound care or if the room was semi-private, the privacy curtain should have been…
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 · E2022-05-12 · tag F0678 — failed to provide CPR when needed — patternProvide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical personnel , subject to physician orders and the resident’s advance directives.
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 have an effective system to denote a resident's resuscitation status for three (#7, 22, and #31) of three residents who were reviewed for advance directives. The administrator identified 37 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #7 had diagnoses which included severe intellectual disabilities. A review of the electronic clinical record revealed the resident did not have an advance directive. The electronic clinical record did not have a current physician order for code status and the Code Status in the heading of the electronic clinical record was blank. 2. Resident #22 had diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and acute respiratory failure. A review of the electronic clinical record revealed the resident had an Advance Directive for Health Care and a signed Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) Consent Form. The electronic clinical record did not have a current physician order for code status and the Code Status in the heading of the electronic clinical record was blank. 3.…
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 · E2022-05-12 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — patternProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 services were provided to increase or prevent further decrease in range of motion for two (#7 and #26) of three residents reviewed for range of motion. The administrator identified 15 residents with limited range of motion. Findings: A review of the March and April 2022 restorative therapy schedule revealed no restorative therapy was documented 03/04/22 through 03/16/22 or 04/18/22 through 04/30/22. 1. Resident #7 had diagnoses which included severe intellectual disability and history of femur fracture. A quarterly MDS assessment (a resident assessment tool used to identify resident care needs), dated 02/17/22, documented the resident required extensive assistance with bed mobility and transfers and received restorative nursing therapy passive range of motion two of the past seven days. An ADL care plan, dated 02/17/22, read in parts, .has an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t Severe Intellectual Disability .left hip fracture .participates in the restorative care program . A care plan, dated 02/18/22, read in…
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 · E2022-05-12 · 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 record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure: a. Infection control was maintained during wound care for one (#28) of one sampled resident who was observed for wound care; b. PPE was worn when providing care to a resident who was on contact isolation for one (#34) of one resident who was on transmission based precautions; c. Infection control was maintained during a finger stick blood sugar test for one (#10) of three residents who were observed during a finger stick blood sugar test; and d. Infection control was maintained during personal care for one (#31) of one sampled resident who was observed for personal care. The DON identified 37 residents who resided in the facility, one resident who was on transmission based precautions, and 18 residents who received finger stick blood sugar tests. Findings: 1. On 05/04/22 at 3:02 p.m., resident #28 was observed at the nurses' station with blood on their arm. LPN #1 cleansed the skin tear at the treatment cart in the hall, after cleansing the skin tear, the LPN did not perform hand hygiene. LPN #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 · Dcited before2022-05-12 · tag F0582 — isolatedGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
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 residents/representatives signed acknowledgement of the advance notice of discharge from Medicare Part A skilled services for one (#34) of three sampled residents who were reviewed for beneficiary protection notification. The DON identified three residents who had been discharged from Medicare Part A skilled services, with benefit days remaining, in the last six months. Findings: An undated facility instruction sheet titled, Form Instructions Advance Beneficiary Notice of Noncoverage (ABN), read in part, .Signature Box .Once the beneficiary reviews and understands the information contained in the ABN, the Signature Box is to be completed by the beneficiary (or representative) .The beneficiary (or representative) must sign the notice to indicate that he or she has received the notice and understands its contents . Resident #34's Medicare 5-day MDS assessment (a resident assessment tool used to identify resident care needs), dated 03/02/22, documented the resident was moderately impaired in cognition and participated…
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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to OKLAHOMA NURSING HOMES, LTD. — 7 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.9 | +1.1 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.6 | -1.6 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 2.6 | +0.4 vs chain |
The other 6 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.6★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SANDRA CHEEK FARMER TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | 8% | since 01/01/2025 |
| STEVEN R. TUBBS REVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 14% | since 01/01/2023 |
| CHEEK, BARNIE | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 8% | since 01/11/2005 |
| ESTEP, PATSY | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 6% | since 01/01/2022 |
| HASKINS, LLOYD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 6% | since 02/08/2023 |
| MCGREW, JUSTIN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 6% | since 01/01/2025 |
| CAROLYN D LEAVERTON REVOCABLE TRUST | Organization | TRUSTEE OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
| JOHNSON, MELISSA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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 79% 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.
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 375293. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-10-04, 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.