Stillwater Creek Skilled Nursing And Therapy
1215 West 10th Street, Stillwater, OK 74074 · For profit - Partnership · 112 certified beds · (405) 372-1000 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (32) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 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 | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 2 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 | 10.6% | 13.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.8% | 3.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.0% | 1.9% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.8% | 2.8% | 2.0% | typical |
| 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 | 0.4% | 0.1% | 0.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.1% | 4.7% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.1% | 13.7% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.6% | 25.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.7% | 94.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.4% | 4.7% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.7% | 17.1% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 17.0% | 17.5% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.9% | 1.8% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 90.2% | 74.1% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.7% | 27.3% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 26.5% | 16.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.22 | 2.31 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.81 | 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.
49.7% 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 120 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 49.0% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 51 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 0.21 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 24% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 15% 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 | 49.7%CMS range 42.8–59.4 | 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 | 11.6%CMS range 8.4–16.0 | 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 | 49.0% | 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 | 43.1% | 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 | 43.1% | 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 | 99.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 1.0% | 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 | 5.2% | 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 | 10.1%CMS range 6.3–14.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.12 | 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 69.7 residents a day — about 62% occupied, or roughly 42 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 3.36 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.28 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.13 is below 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 3.10 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.46 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.34 to 0.13 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% 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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
32 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 22 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-03-05 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the physician of a resident leaving AMA for 1 (#4) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for leaving the facility AMA. The administrator identified 62 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #4 had diagnoses which included alcohol abuse, other psychoactive abuse with intoxication, chronic heart failure, anxiety, depression, and anemia. A late entry progress note, dated 11/25/24, showed Resident #4 left the facility under the care of their friend and all medications were in the resident's possession. There was no documentation Resident #4's physician was notified the resident left AMA. On 03/04/25 at 4:14 p.m., the administrator was asked if Resident #4's physician was notified the resident left AMA, or if there was any documentation the physician was notified. The administrator stated there was no documentation. On 03/04/25 at 4:20 p.m., corporate nurse consultant #1 was asked if the facility had a policy or procedure for a resident leaving AMA. They stated, No.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-03-15 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — patternImmediately 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 notify the physician when fingerstick blood sugar results were greater than 501 for one (#57) of one sampled resident reviewed for change in condition. The Administrator identified 66 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Resident's Family or Physician Notification of Change Guideline policy dated 12/01/09, read in part .The facility will .consult with the resident's physician .of the following events .A need to alter treatment significantly. (i.e. a need to discontinue an existing form of treatment due to adverse consequences, or to commence a new form of treatment) . Resident #57 had diagnoses which included, heart failure and type two diabetes mellitus. A physician order, dated 01/10/24, documented to administer Humalog Insulin subcutaneously before meals and at bedtime per sliding scale. Resident #57's January and February 2024 MAR documented the resident was to be administered the following insulin on a sliding scale: .Humalog Injection inject per sliding scale: If 0-60 = 0 units, Give glucose recheck in 15…
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 · E2024-03-15 · 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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to prevent development of new pressure ulcers for one (#15) of one sampled residents reviewed for pressure ulcers. Corporate consult RN #1 identified six residents resided in the facility with pressure ulcers. Findings: Res #15 had diagnoses which included quadriplegia, pressure induced deep tissue damage of left heel, and pressure ulcer of sacral region stage IV. A physician order, dated 02/12/24, documented heel lift boots in place every shift for wound prevention. A care plan, reviewed 02/13/24, documented Res #15 was to have heel lift boots in place every shift, and staff were to float heels with pillows while in bed. A weekly skin evaluation, dated 03/11/24 at 11:08 a.m., documented Res #15 had no new skin issues. On 03/12/24 at 9:15 a.m., Res #15 was observed in bed on their back. Both feet were observed without any pressure relieving devices in place. The resident's bare feet were observed pressed into the footboard of the bed. The right great toe, second toe, and third toe were observed curling under…
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 · E2024-03-15 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
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 obtain orders for continuous oxygen and failed to ensure oxygen tubing was changed and dated per physician orders for two (#1 and #9) of two sampled residents reviewed for oxygen administration. Corporate consult RN #1 identified 13 residents received oxygen in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #1 had diagnoses which included COPD. A physician order, dated 11/17/22, documented to administer oxygen at 2 liters per minute as needed to maintain oxygen saturation above 89%. A physician order, dated 11/17/22, documented to change oxygen tubing and humidifier bottle monthly on the 15th on night shift. The order documented to date tubing. A quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], documented Res #1 was cognitively intact. On 03/11/24 at 12:22 p.m., Res #1 was observed in bed with oxygen being administered via nasal cannula from a concentrator. The tubing was observed without a date indicating when it was last changed. The humidification bottle on 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 · E2024-03-15 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — patternProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
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 there was ongoing assessment of a resident on dialysis for one (#54) of one sampled resident reviewed for dialysis services. The administrator identified two residents received dialysis services. Findings: A Guidelines for Dialysis After Care policy and procedure, dated 07/11/12, read in part, .Inspection of the AVF .access and entire access extremity including hands or feet .Presence/absence or thrill and/or bruits .Signs and Symptoms of infection .Bruising and/or bleeding .Peripheral Pulses .Erosion of Skin or Sores over access site .Post dialysis dressing removal includes .Dressing should be removed 4 hours after dialysis treatment . Res #54 had diagnoses which included ESRD. Physician orders, dated 02/02/24, documented, dialysis Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday; check AVF for thrill and bruit every shift. If absent notify the physician; monitor AVF for s/s of trauma and/or infection every shift; and remove AVF dressing four hours after dialysis treatment. The February and March 2024 dialysis communication forms and…
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 before2024-03-15 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered according to physician orders for one (#12) of five sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary mediations. The administrator identified 66 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #12 had diagnoses which included diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hypertension. A physician order, dated 09/14/23, documented to administer insulin glargine subcutaneous solution 20 units subcutaneously two times a day for diabetes at 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. A physician order, dated 09/14/23, documented to administer insulin aspart subcutaneous solution per sliding scale: if 0 - 150 = 0; 151 - 200 = 2; 201 - 250 = 4; 251 - 300 = 6; 301 - 350 = 8; 351 - 400 = 10; 401 - 450 = 12; 451 - 999 = 12 For FSBS greater than 450, give 12 units and notify MD for further instructions before meals and at bedtime related to diabetes. A physician order, dated 11/23/23, documented to administer Victoza subcutaneous solution 1.2…
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 · E2024-03-15 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — patternEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to monitor for side effects related to the use of Warfarin for one (#62) of one sampled resident reviewed anticoagulant use. The Administrator identified 66 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #62 had diagnoses which included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction. September, October, November, December and January MAR's documented Resident #62 had been administered Warfarin as ordered by the physician. The clinical health record did not document Resident #62 had been monitored for side effects related to the use of Warfarin from 09/08/23 through 01/22/24. Resident #62's TAR, dated 01/22/24, read in part .Monitor: Nose/gum bleeding, coughing or bloodtinged sputum, hematuria, black/tarry stools, vomiting of blood or coffee ground-like material, abnormal or excessive bruising, low b/p, Change in cognition, cyanosis, every shift for anti-coagulation therapy Warfarin . On 03/12/24 at 02:21 p.m. the Corp. Nurse Consultant #1 was asked if Resident #62 had been monitored for side effects in the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-03-15 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
2. Res #9 had diagnoses which included anxiety disorder. A physician order, dated 04/13/23, documented to administer Ativan oral tablet 0.5 mg every 12 hours as needed for anxiety. A monthly medication review, dated 05/01/23, documented the pharmacist's request to add a stop date to the as needed Ativan order per regulations. There was no documented stop date to the order until 08/05/23. A MAR for May 2023 documented Res #9 received the as needed Ativan 33 times. A MAR for June 2023 documented Res #9 received the as needed Ativan 25 times. A MAR for July 2023 documented Res #9 received the as needed Ativan 29 times. A MAR for August 2023 documented Res #9 received the as needed Ativan four times. The order was discontinued on 08/05/23. On 03/14/24 at 3:00 p.m. Corporate consult RN #1 stated a 14 day stop date was not added to the order. Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure: a. behavior and side effect monitoring was conducted for the use of psychotropic medications for one (#127), and b. PRN antianxiety medications were limited to 14 days for one (#9)…
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 · E2024-03-15 · tag F0770 — failed to provide lab services — patternProvide timely, quality laboratory services/tests to meet the needs of residents.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to obtain laboratory studies as ordered for one (#5) of five sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The administrator identified 66 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #5 had diagnoses which included hypokalemia. A lab result, dated 06/20/23, documented Res #5 had a low potassium level. A handwritten note on the result documented the nurse practitioner was notified, and a new order was received to administer potassium 10 meq and repeat CMP on 6/26/23. A nurse progress note, dated 6/23/2023 at 12:33 p.m., documented a focused assessment related to labs. CBC, CMP and lipid panel sent to nurse practitioner for review. New orders to give KCL 20 meq now and repeat CMP on Monday 06/26/23. On 03/12/24 at 4:08 p.m., the missing labs were requested from the ADON. On 03/15/24 at 9:14 a.m., the administrator stated it was their understanding that the facility was unable to locate documentation for the repeat lab on 6/26/23.
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-15 · tag F0637 — isolatedAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
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 complete a significant change assessment for a resident with declines in ADLs for one (#48) of two sampled residents reviewed for ADLs. The administrator identified 66 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An annual MDS, dated [DATE], documented Res #48 had no functional impairments in range of motion. The MDS documented Res #48 required setup/cleanup assistance with upper body dressing. The MDS documented Res #48 required supervision with walking 10 feet. The MDS documented Res #48 required partial/moderate assistance with lower body dressing and applying and removing footwear. A quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], documented Res #48 had declined in range of motion and had impairments of upper and lower extremities on both sides. The MDS documented Res #48 had declined in their ability to perform toileting hygiene, and showering/bathing self and required partial/moderate assistance. The MDS documented Res #48 was newly dependent with upper and lower…
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.
Show the remaining 22 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-03-15 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop 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 update a care plan with smoking interventions for one #57) of one sampled resident reviewed for smoking. The Administrator identified 66 residents resided in the facility and the list of smoking residents documented eleven residents smoked. Findings: A Smoking Policy and Procedure revised 02/24/20, read in part .To offer the resident the ability to smoke free of danger to self and others .The resident may choose to utilize an electronic cigarette .physicians should be notified to appropriately update care plan and set goals for residents regarding smoking habits . Resident #57 had diagnoses which included, heart failure and type two diabetes mellitus. Resident #57's care plan did not have any interventions or safety measures implemented for smoking. On 03/11/24 at 12:59 p.m., Resident #57 was asked if they smoked. They stated that they were and was able to smoke when they wanted. On 03/12/24 12:44 p.m., the Administrator was asked if Resident #57 was a smoker. They stated the resident had signed a smoking contract, 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 · D2024-03-15 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — isolatedEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 regimen review was responded to timely for one (#9) of five sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The administrator identified 66 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #9 had diagnoses which included bipolar disorder, insomnia, and depression. A physician order, dated 09/07/23, documented to administer Zoloft oral tablet 50 mg one time per day for depression. A physician order, dated 09/07/23, documented to administer Abilify oral tablet 2 mg one time per day for bipolar disorder. A physician order, dated 10/18/23, documented to administer Trazodone HCL oral tablet 300 mg at bedtime for bipolar disorder. A monthly medication review, dated 12/18/23, documented the pharmacist request to attempt a gradual dose reduction of the residents Zoloft, Abilify, or trazodone. The medication review was not documented as responded to until 02/12/24 in which the physician declined the GDR. On 03/14/24 at 2:51 PM, Corporate consult RN #1 stated if there is not a response within 30 days to a…
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 · E2023-01-27 · 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 record review, observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were treated with respect and dignity, and care in a timely manner for two (#23 and #26) of 24 residents reviewed for dignity and respect. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 73 residents resident in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #23 had diagnoses which included sequelae of unspecified cerebrovascular disease, pressure ulcer of sacral region, chronic pain, quadriplegia C1-C4 incomplete, collapsed vertebra cervical region sequela of fracture, and neuropathy. A significant change assessment, dated 01/19/23, documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition, required two person assist with bed mobility, had an indwelling catheter, was incontinent of bowel, and received opioid medication. The resident's current care plan documented to assist with turning and repositioning frequently. On 01/24/23 at 10:12 a.m., Res #23's call light was observed clipped to their sheet above their left shoulder. At that time the resident stated they wanted to be moved because they…
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 · E2023-01-27 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, homelike environment regarding wheelchair maintenance and air temperatures. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report documented 73 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. On 01/23/23 at 4:02 p.m., Res #13 stated she stayed cold all the time and had to wear multiple layers of clothing to stay warm. Res #13 was observed to have on two coats, two sock hats, the hood from one of her jackets, and a pair of gloves. The temperature was taken in the resident's bathroom and it was 68.2 degrees F. The temperature at the resident bed was 68.0 degrees F. There was a white blanket observed folded up on the window ledge but a draft was still felt coming through the window. On 01/24/23 at 11:44 a.m., Res #13's room temperature at the bed was 59.5 degrees and in the bathroom it was 63.1 degrees. On 01/25/23 at 10:40 a.m., the temperature in Res #13's room was 66.7 degrees at the bed and 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 · E2023-01-27 · tag F0646 — patternNotify the appropriate authorities when residents with MD or ID services has a significant change in condition.
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 the OHCA was notified after a resident received a significant mental health diagnoses for two (#17 and #37) of three residents reviewed for PASRR. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, documented 72 residents who reside in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included recurrent depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. On 02/28/19, a new diagnosis of psychotic disorder with delusions due to known physiological condition was documented in the resident's diagnoses in the medical record. On 01/27/23 at 10:15 a.m., the DON and corporate nurse consultant #1 stated the OHCA should have been called after the new diagnoses was added on 02/28/19. 2. Res #37 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included recurrent depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. On 12/03/21, a new diagnosis of delusional disorder was documented in the resident's record. On 01/27/23 at…
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 before2023-01-27 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for two (#6 and #11) of 23 residents whose care plans were reviewed. The facility failed to develop a care plan: a. related to wandering behaviors for Res #11 and b. related to ADL care including refusals to bathe for Res #6. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 73 residents resided at the facility. Findings: 1. Res #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses which included dementia, Parkinson's disease, and seizures. The admission MDS, dated [DATE], documented the resident's cognition was severely impaired, required assistance with ADLs, had not bathed in the last seven days, and had no rejection of care behaviors. On 01/23/23 at 3:53 p.m., Res #6 was observed in her room in bed. The resident was asked if they were getting their baths as scheduled. The resident stated they had not had a bath in five weeks. The resident's bathing record 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 before2023-01-27 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 bathing was provided to dependent residents for six (#2, 17, 21, 23, 30, and #124) of six residents reviewed for ADL care. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report documented 73 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #2 had diagnoses which included COPD, dementia, and depressive disorder. A care plan, last revised 11/11/22, documented bathing Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday on the 3-11 shift. Res #2 required one to two staff participation with bathing. Provide Res #2 with a sponge bath when a full bath or shower cannot be tolerated. Res #2 will often refuse showers. A five day assessment, dated 01/03/23, documented the resident was intact with cognition and required extensive assistance with bathing. The EHR bathing documentation for the last 30 days documented the resident was scheduled for bathing on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday on the 3-11 shift and PRN. The resident should have received 13 baths during the 30 day time frame. There were two documented baths, six refused…
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 before2023-01-27 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
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 there was sufficient nursing staff to provide care in accordance with resident care plans for eight (#2, 13, 17, 21, 23, 30, 49, and #124) of 24 residents reviewed for staffing. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 73 residents resided at the facility. Findings: 1. Res #124's admission MDS assessment, dated 12/08/22, documented the resident was cognitively intact, required the assistance of two people with bathing, and had no rejection of care behaviors, The resident's bathing record documented the scheduled times for bathing were Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. The record documented for the last 30 days, the resident had 14 opportunities for bathing. The record documented the resident received three showers, refused eight times, and missed three showers. On 01/23/23 at 5:27 p.m., the resident was asked if she received her baths as scheduled. The resident stated sometimes they skip her. She stated she has not had a bath in two weeks. The resident's hair was observed to be…
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 before2023-01-27 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide 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, observation, and interview, the facility failed to obtain blood pressures for one (#30) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report documented 73 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #30 had diagnoses which included CHF, angina pectoris, and hypertensive heart disease with heart failure. A physician order, dated 05/29/20, documented prazosin 5 mg at bedtime related to hypertensive heart disease with heart failure. Hold if systolic BP <110. A physician order, dated 05/25/21, documented metoprolol ER 50 mg one time a day related to hypertensive heart disease with heart failure. Hold if systolic BP is <110, diastolic BP <60, or pulse <60. A physician order, dated 06/03/21, documented isosorbide 10 mg two times a day related to angina pectoris. Hold for systolic BP <110, diastolic BP <60, or pulse <60. A physician order, dated 11/24/21, documented ranolazine ER 500 mg two times a day related to angina pectoris. Hold if systolic BP < 110 or diastolic BP < 60. An annual assessment, dated…
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 · D2023-01-27 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each 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 call lights were in reach for one (#23) of 24 residents observed for call lights. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 73 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #23 had diagnoses which included sequelae of unspecified cerebrovascular disease, pressure ulcer of sacral region, chronic pain, quadriplegia C1-C4 incomplete, collapsed vertebra cervical region sequelae of fracture, and neuropathy. A significant change assessment, dated 01/19/23, documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition, required two person assist with bed mobility, had an indwelling catheter, was incontinent of bowel, and received opioid medication. On 01/24/23 at 10:12 a.m., Res #23's call light was observed clipped to his sheet above his shoulder. At that time the resident stated he wanted to be moved because he was hurting and his nose itched. The resident was asked if he could use his call light. He looked over at it and shook his head no. At that time the surveyor initiated…
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 · D2023-01-27 · 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, observation, and interview, the facility filed to ensure an allegation of abuse was reported to the State Survey Agency no later than two hours after the allegation was made for one (#21) of one resident reviewed for abuse. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report documented 73 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The Resident Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation of Property policy and procedure, revised 11/01/22, read in part, .C. Director of Nursing/Administrator do initial state report, send in any staff to Nursing/CNA Board Immediately but no later than 2 hours* - If the alleged violation involves abuse or results in serious bodily injury .'' Res #21 had diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus, depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder. A quarterly assessment, dated 01/11/23, documented the resident was intact with cognition and required extensive assistance with bed mobility and total assistance with toilet use and bathing. An incident report, dated 07/17/22 at 4:45 a.m., documented an allegation of neglect. The initial report fax…
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 before2023-01-27 · 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, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received adequate supervision and/or failed to implement interventions to prevent wandering into other resident rooms for one (#11) of one resident reviewed for wandering. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report documented 73 residents residing in the facility. Findings: 1. Res #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease, dementia with behavioral disturbance, bipolar disorder, and unspecified anxiety disorder. A quarterly assessment, dated 12/03/22, documented the resident was cognitively impaired, had behavioral disturbances, was independent with walking, and had wandering behaviors which occurred daily. A care plan, last reviewed 12/12/22, was completed and there was no care plan for wandering. On 01/23/23 at 1:00 p.m., Res #11 was observed wandering throughout the facility. On 01/24/23 at 7:48 a.m., Res #11 was observed wandering in room [ROOM NUMBER]…
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 · E2019-10-10 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — patternRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure allegations of abuse were thoroughly investigated for one (#15) of two sampled residents who were reviewed for thorough investigations. The resident census and condition report identified 76 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #15 had diagnoses which included schizophrenia. A quarterly assessment, dated 07/05/19, documented the resident was moderately impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision making, required limited assistance from staff for ambulation and was independent with transfers. A care plan, dated 07/12/19, documented the resident had impaired cognition, due to schizophrenia and his behaviors and mood could fluctuate. He used psychotropic medications related to behavior management. Interventions included to offer the resident reassurance, redirection and one to one supervision as needed. Staff was to monitor and record behaviors of refusing care, hoarding and anxiety exhibited by restlessness. A nurse's note, dated 08/29/19 at 3:03 p.m., documented the resident 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2019-10-10 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure assistance with activities of daily living was provided in a timely manner for three (#44, #59 and #61) of three sampled residents who were reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility identified 69 residents who required assistance with bathing and 49 residents who required assistance with toileting. Findings: 1. Resident #59 had diagnoses which included transient cerebral ischemic attack and overactive bladder. A quarterly assessment, dated 08/26/19, documented the resident was independent in cognitive skills for daily decision making. She required extensive assistance of one person for toileting and bathing. The resident was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. The care plan, last revised on 09/14/19, documented a focus related to having bowel and bladder incontinence due to overactive bladder. The goal was to remain free from skin breakdown due to incontinence and brief use through the review date. Interventions included to check the resident frequently for…
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 before2019-10-10 · 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, record review and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure: ~ supervision was provided to prevent elopements for one (#33) of one sampled resident who was reviewed for eleopements; ~ smoking assessments were completed and supervision was provided to ensure residents did not smoke in their rooms for one (#3) of one sampled resident who smoked; and ~ safe transfers with a lift were provided with the assistance of two staff members for one (#23) of one sampled resident who was reviewed for transfers using a lift. The facility identified 15 residents who smoked and 76 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #33 had diagnoses which included end stage renal disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. An admission elopement assessment, dated 07/30/19, documented the resident was a low risk for elopement. An admission assessment, dated 08/08/19, documented the resident was moderately impaired in cognition for daily decision making skills and required limited assistance from staff with activities of daily living. A behavior note, dated…
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 · E2019-10-10 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — patternProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure pain medication was administered in a timely manner for one (#27) of three sampled residents who were reviewed for pain. The facility identified 76 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #27 had diagnoses which included fracture of the tibia. A discharge assessment, dated 08/10/19, documented she was independent in cognitive skills for daily decision making and had frequent pain rated a four on a scale of 0-10. A care plan, last revised on 09/19/19, documented a focus of acute/chronic pain related to fracture to the shaft of the right tibia, wedge compression fractures to thoracic and lumbar vertebra and spinal stenosis of the lumbar region. The goal was to not have an interruption in normal activities due to pain through the review date. Interventions included to administer Percocet every four hours as needed as ordered; respond immediately to any complaint of pain; monitor/record/report to nurse loss of appetite, refusal to eat and weight loss; and…
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 before2019-10-10 · tag F0725 — failed to have enough nursing staff — patternProvide enough nursing staff every day to meet the needs of every resident; and have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide sufficient nurse staff to ensure care was provided in a timely manner for three (#44, #59 and #61) of 14 sampled residents who were reviewed for staffing. The facility identified 76 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #59 had diagnoses which included transient cerebral ischemic attack and overactive bladder. A quarterly assessment, dated 08/26/19, documented the resident was independent in cognitive skills for daily decision making. She required extensive assistance of one person for toileting and bathing. The resident was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. The care plan, last revised on 09/14/19, documented a focus related to having bowel and bladder incontinence due to overactive bladder. The goal was to remain free from skin breakdown due to incontinence and brief use through the review date. Interventions included to check the resident frequently for incontinence and provide incontinent care as needed. On 10/07/19 at 10:13 a.m., the resident 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.
- Potential for harm · E2019-10-10 · 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, it was determined the facility failed to ensure a sufficient amount of bedtime snacks were available and offered to residents. The facility identified 75 residents who received meals from the kitchen, and 25 residents were identified as diabetic. Findings: On 10/09/19 at 10:05 a.m., a group meeting with 13 residents was conducted. The residents stated snacks had been available at the nurse's station for those who were capable to help themselves. They stated snacks were not passed on a regular basis to the dependent residents. The residents stated the staff had not been putting out enough snacks for all the residents and some residents would take multiple snacks if they were able to get to the tray first. At 1:50 p.m., the dietary staff was observed preparing the bedtime snacks. DA #1 was asked what was being prepared. He stated 20 bologna and cheese sandwiches were made and cut in half to make 40 servings. The staff would then wrap the half sandwiches individually for the bedtime snacks. The DA stated they would also set out fruit,…
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 before2019-10-10 · 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 interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to notify the physician and the family in a timely manner after a fall for one (#68) of two sampled residents who were reviewed for falls. The resident census and condition report documented 76 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #68 had diagnoses which included dementia. A quarterly assessment, dated 09/05/19, documented the resident was severely impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision making. She required limited assistance of one staff with transfers and extensive assistance of one person for toileting. The resident was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. She had one fall without injury prior to the assessment. The care plan, last revised on 09/23/19, documented a focus related to falls due to confusion. The goal was for staff to evaluate all falls and intervene as needed to reduce the potential of significant injury through the review date. Interventions included to toilet and provide incontinent care frequently. On 10/08/19 at 8:35 a.m., the resident's responsible…
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 before2019-10-10 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to develop a care plan related to smoking for one (#33) of four sampled residents who smoked. The facility identified 15 residents who smoked. Findings: Resident #33 had diagnoses which included end stage renal disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. A progress note, dated 09/12/19 at 5:19 p.m., documented the SSD was notified by a CMA that the resident had been smoking in the resident's room. When the SSD went to the resident's room, the pack of cigarettes was observed next to the resident and the lighter was on the bedside table. The resident was reminded of the smoking policy and the SSD requested the staff keep the cigarettes and lighter but the resident refused. According to the admissions coordinator the resident was caught smoking earlier in the day. A behavior note, dated 09/16/19 at 4:05 p.m., documented the resident had been smoking two times that day in the resident's room during the day shift. The resident was informed that smoking in the facility was not ever allowed. There was no care plan…
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 · D2019-10-10 · 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 interview and record review, it was determined the facility failed to assess a resident in a timely manner after a fall for one (#68) of two sampled residents who were reviewed for falls. The resident census and condition report documented 76 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #68 had diagnoses which included dementia. A quarterly assessment, dated 09/05/19, documented the resident was severely impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision making. She required limited assistance of one staff with transfers and extensive assistance of one person for toileting. The resident was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. She had one fall without injury prior to the assessment. The care plan, last revised on 09/23/19, documented a focus related to falls due to confusion. The goal was for staff to evaluate all falls and intervene as needed to reduce the potential of significant injury through the review date. Interventions included to toilet and provide incontinent care frequently. On 10/08/19 at 8:35 a.m., the resident's responsible party stated he 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 · D2019-10-10 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
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 document a fall in the clinical record in a timely manner for one (#68) of two sampled residents who were reviewed for falls. The resident census and condition report documented 76 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #68 had diagnoses which included dementia. A quarterly assessment, dated 09/05/19, documented the resident was severely impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision making. She required limited assistance of one staff with transfers and extensive assistance of one person for toileting. The resident was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. She had one fall without injury prior to the assessment. The care plan, last revised on 09/23/19, documented a focus related to falls due to confusion. The goal was for staff to evaluate all falls and intervene as needed to reduce the potential of significant injury through the review date. Interventions included to toilet and provide incontinent care frequently. On 10/08/19 at 8:35 a.m., the resident's responsible party stated…
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 BRIDGES HEALTH — 33 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 | 2 of 5 | 3.6 | -1.6 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 3.5 | -1.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 3.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 2 of 5 | 3.0 | -1.0 vs chain |
The other 32 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.6★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BRIDGES EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 12/31/2020 |
| DEROIN, KRISTY | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 12/31/2020 |
| COBLE, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/31/2020 |
| BRIDGES ESOP, INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/31/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 5 rows in the source record cover these 4 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 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 $481K 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 375178. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-03-15, 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.