The Cottage Extended Care
7707 South Memorial Drive, Tulsa, OK 74133 · For profit - Individual · 176 certified beds · (918) 250-8571 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
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited May 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
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0570)
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (19) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (85%) 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) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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 improved from 3 to 4 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 | 6.8% | 13.6% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.8% | 3.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 3.6% | 1.9% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.4% | 2.8% | 2.0% | better |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.0% | 3.4% | 6.5% | better |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 0.7% | 4.7% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 4.4% | 13.7% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.6% | 25.7% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 81.1% | 94.6% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 14.2% | 4.7% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 8.1% | 17.1% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.5% | 17.5% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.9% | 1.8% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 40.8% | 74.1% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 33.7% | 27.3% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 20.6% | 16.6% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 4.05 | 2.31 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.10 | 2.96 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
53.2% 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 74 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 15.6% 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 64 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 0.11 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 7% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 37% 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 | 53.2%CMS range 43.6–64.8 | 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 | 11.4%CMS range 8.2–16.0 | 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 | 15.6% | 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 | 20.3% | 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 | 12.5% | 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 | 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 | 6.5% | 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 | 6.6%CMS range 4.0–12.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.06 | 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 176 beds and averages 85.3 residents a day — about 48% occupied, or roughly 91 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 3.95 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.21 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.65 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.52 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.13 on weekdays — 15% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.24 to 0.15 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 85% 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 fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. 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.
19 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 8 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-05-30 · 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
On 05/29/25 at 4:40 p.m., the OSDH was notified and verified the existence of a past non-compliance immediate jeopardy (IJ) situation related to the facility's failure to ensure wound care was completed as ordered. On 05/29/25 at 4:47 p.m., the administrator was notified of the immediate jeopardy (IJ) situation. The administrator was provided the IJ template Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident had wound care completed as ordered for 1 (#1) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for wound care. The DON identified 10 residents received wound care. Findings: A quarterly assessment, dated 02/07/25, showed Resident #1 had a brief interview for mental status score of 11, which indicated moderate impairment in cognitive ability, and had diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cognitive communication deficit. A physician order for Resident #1, dated 05/08/25, showed daily dressing changes for left medial ankle venous wound. A progress note, dated 05/27/25 at 1:18 a.m., showed LPN #1 changed the ankle dressing for Resident #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 · D2026-06-18 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to: a. ensure medications were secure for 1 of 1 wound care cart, and b. ensure medications were secure for 1 of 2 nurse treatment carts observed. The administrator identified 86 residents resided in the facility. Findings: On 06/18/26 at 8:10 a.m., the wound care cart on the north wing of the facility was observed to be unlocked and unattended. The cart was observed to contain medicated wound care cream and wound wash. On 06/18/26 at 8:12 a.m., LPN #1 stated the wound care cart should have been locked. LPN #1 stated the wound care nurse did not come in until 9:00 a.m. and the night shift did not have a key to the cart and may have needed to change a dressing during the night. On 06/18/26 at 8:25 a.m., the DON stated the wound care cart should be locked when unattended. The DON stated the night shift had a key to the wound care cart. On 06/18/26 at 8:40 a.m., the nurse treatment cart on the south wing of the facility was observed to be unlocked and unattended. The cart was observed to contain insulin. On 06/18/26 at 8:42 a.m.,…
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 · D2025-01-09 · tag F0622 — isolatedNot transfer or discharge a resident without an adequate reason; and must provide documentation and convey specific information when a resident is transferred or discharged.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete a discharge summary for one (#98) of three sampled residents reviewed for discharge. The administrator identified 100 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Discharging the Resident policy, revised December 2016, read in part, the following information should be recorded in the resident's medical record: the date and time the discharge was made, all assessment data obtained during the, and the signature and title of the person recording the data. Resident #98 had diagnoses which included chronic kidney disease stage 4, anxiety, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Upon review of the resident's chart there was no discharge summary noted. On 01/08/25 at 8:07 a.m., the DON was asked what was the facility policy on discharge of a resident. The DON stated if the resident had a physician order to discharge, then the proper paper work was filled out, and the resident and/or family was educated. They stated if the resident was unsafe to go AMA the doctor would not write an order and the staff would do…
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 · D2025-01-09 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure oxygen and breathing nebulizer tubing was dated for two (#24 and #59) of three sampled residents reviewed for oxygen and breathing nebulizer tubing. The administrator identified 100 residents resided in the facility. The DON identified 19 residents used oxygen in facility Findings: 1. Resident #24 had diagnoses which included chronic respiratory failure, hemiplegia left side effected, asthma, and history of transient ischemic attack. A Physician order, dated 11/26/24 documented an order for oxygen at 3L via NC to keep sats greater than 90%. On 01/06/25 at 1:57 p.m., Resident #24's oxygen tubing was observed with no date. On 01/08/25 at 8:56 a.m., Resident #24's oxygen tubing was observed with no date. A Treatment Administration record, dated December 2024 and January 2025, documented no order for nursing staff to change and date the oxygen tubing. On 01/08/25 at 10:20 a.m., the DON was asked what expectations the facility had for oxygen tubing to be changed and dated. The DON stated if oxygen was used…
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 before2025-01-09 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolatedMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure call light cords were available in resident rooms for three (#1, 43, and #62) of twenty sampled residents whose call light cord system was observed. The administrator identified 100 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An Answering the Call Light policy, revised September 2022, read in part, Ensure that the call system is accessible to the resident when in bed, from the toilet, from the shower or bathing facility and from the floor. 1. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included functional quadriplegia, neuromuscular dysfunction, and expressive language disorder A communication care plan, dated 01/08/25, documented the resident had been offered a call light they could blow into, but refused respiratory exercises to make them able to use it. On 01/08/25 at 4:15 p.m., an observation was made of Resident #1's call light on the floor behind the head board of the bed. On 01/09/25 at 7:39 a.m., an observation was made of Resident #1's call light on the floor behind the head board of the bed. On 01/09/25 at 7:40 a.m.,…
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 · E2023-11-29 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — patternProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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 physician's orders were obtained for catheter care for one (#1) of four residents reviewed for catheters. The DON identified 16 residents with catheters. Findings: Resident #1 had diagnoses which included urinary retention and chronic kidney disease. Resident #1's Significant Change in Status Assessment, dated 05/25/23, documented the resident was moderately impaired for daily decision making. A physician order, dated 09/22/23, documented Install Foley Catheter for Urinary Retention. On 11/28/23 at 1:05 p.m., LPN #1 stated that all residents with catheters should have an order for catheter care every shift and it should be documented in the TAR. At 1:40 p.m., RN #1 stated nurses typically perform catheter care and documented it on the TAR. They also stated all residents with a catheter should have an order for catheter care every shift. The TAR, dated 09/23, did not document any catheter care. The TAR, dated 10/23, did not document any catheter care. The TAR, dated 11/23, did not document any catheter care. 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 · D2023-09-15 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to prevent facility staff from uploading a video recording of a resident being abused onto a social media platform for one (#73) of three sampled residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form, dated 09/06/23, documented 86 resident resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #73 had diagnoses which included Alzheimer's Disease and anxiety disorder. An Abuse and Neglect Prohibition policy, undated, read in part .Mental Abuse Includes, but is not limited to, humiliation, threats of punishment, deprivation or taking pictures/video that depicts the resident in a demeaning or humiliating way .No nursing home staff member is to publish or distribute pictures/video on personal social media . A cell phone policy, undated, read in part .Do not use cell phones or any other recording devices to take pictures or videos of residents . A hand written and signed statement, reported to be from CNA #5, dated 08/08/23, documented the CNA had viewed a video of CNA #4, FE #1, and Resident #73 on 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 · Dcited before2023-09-15 · 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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to protect a resident from physical and verbal abuse for one (#73) of three sampled residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form, dated 09/06/23, documented 86 resident resided at the facility. Findings: Resident #73 had diagnoses which included Alzheimer's Disease and anxiety disorder. An Abuse and Neglect Prohibition policy, undated, read in part .Residents will not be subjected to abuse by anyone (including, but not limited to: facility staff, other residents, consultants, or volunteers, staff of other agencies servicing the individual, family members or legal guardians, friends, and other individuals). A report will be made immediately to a supervisor or charge person in the event that an abusive action or an injury is suspected or observed . A cell phone policy, undated, read in part .Do not use cell phones or any other recording devices to take pictures or videos of residents . An incident report, incident date 08/08/23, read in part .[CNA #5] reported that…
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 · D2023-09-15 · 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 failed to ensure a suspected incident of abuse was reported to the administrator within two hours of discovery for one (#73) of three sampled residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form, dated 09/06/23, identified 86 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #73 had diagnoses which included Alzheimer's Disease and anxiety disorder. An Abuse and Neglect Prohibition policy, undated, read in part .A report will be made immediately to a supervisor or charge person in the event that an abusive act or an injury is suspected or observed . An incident report, incident date 08/08/23, documented CNA #5 had reported viewing a video on social media of CNA #4 and FE #1 verbally abusing Resident #73 on 08/04/23. The report further documented CNA #5 had reported the incident to the ADON and DON on 08/08/23. A quarterly assessment, dated 08/10/23, documented the resident's cognition as severely impaired and they were totally dependent on staff for activities of daily…
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 · D2023-09-15 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure baths were provided for dependent residents for two (#63 and #244) of two sampled residents reviewed for ADL care. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 82 residents required assistance or were dependent on staff for ADL care. Findings: The undated Bath Shower/Tub policy, read in part, .The purpose of this procedure are to promote cleanliness, provide comfort to the resident and to observe the condition of the resident's skin . 1. Resident #63 had diagnoses which included functional quadriplegia. The care plan, dated 07/11/23, documented the the resident had an ADL self care performance deficit with the goal of having all needs met on a daily basis. The five day MDS, dated [DATE], documented the resident was totally dependent on staff for personal hygiene and bathing. On 09/06/23 at 10:54 a.m., the resident's spouse stated the resident does not get scheduled baths. A review of bath sheets for Resident #63 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 · Dcited before2023-09-15 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolatedMake sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
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 place functioning call light activation buttons where residents could access them for two (#38 and #76) of two sampled residents reviewed for call systems. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form, dated 09/06/23, documented 86 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A facility policy titled Call System, Resident , undated, read in part, .Each resident is provided with a means to call staff directly for assistance from his/her bed, from toileting/bathing facilities and from the floor . 1. Resident #38 had diagnoses which included frontotemperal neurocognitive disorder and age related physical debility. A quarterly assessment, dated 06/23/23, documented the resident required extensive staff assistance with activities of daily living. On 09/06/23 at 1:11 p.m., Resident #38 stated they had a problem with the call light activation button. They stated they could never find it. The button was observed on the floor to the left of the resident's bed. They were asked how often they could not reach 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.
Show the remaining 8 citations
- Potential for harm · E2021-12-02 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure dignity was maintained by covering urinary drainage bags with dignity bags for two (#32 and #61) of two residents reviewed for dignity. The DON identified 14 residents who required urinary drainage bags. Findings: 1. Resident (Res) #32 had diagnoses which included quadriplegia, traumatic brain injury, morbid obesity, and congestive heart failure. The resident's Care Plan updated 04/20/21, read in parts, .Be sure cath bag is covered with dignity bag . A quarterly assessment, dated 10/13/21, documented the resident was severely impaired with cognition, was dependent on staff for activities of daily living, required an indwelling urinary catheter and was incontinent of bowel. On 11/29/21 at 11:13 a.m., Res #32's urinary drainage bag was observed from the hall and was not covered with a dignity bag. On 11/29/21 at 3:14 p.m., Res #32's urinary drainage bag was observed from the hall and was not covered with a dignity bag. Visitors were observed in the hall. On 11/30/21 at 9:35 a.m., Res #32's urinary…
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 · E2021-12-02 · tag F0570 — patternAssure the security of all personal funds of residents deposited with the facility.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility surety bond was in an amount to secure all personal funds of residents who deposited with the facility. The Administrator identified ten residents who had personal funds with the facility. Findings: On 12/01/21 at 11:00 a.m.,, the business office manager provided a trust fund statement for November 2021 in the amount of $73, 319.39. On 12/01/21 at 1:00 p.m., the Administrator provided a Certificate of Liability Insurance form, dated 09/20/21- 09/20/22, which documented the resident fund bond was $25,000. The Administrator reported they were unaware the surety bond did not cover liability of the resident trust fund.
- Potential for harm · E2021-12-02 · tag F0685 — patternAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure eye glasses were repaired for one resident (#42) of one sampled for vision. The DON identified 30 residents who required eye glasses. Findings: Resident (Res) #42 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hypertension and hemiplegia. An annual assessment, dated 10/22/21, documented Res #42 was severely impaired in cognition and required moderate assistance with activities of daily living. A care plan, dated 10/30/21, documented in part I have impaired visual function. I will use appropriate visual devices glasses to promote participation in activities of daily living and other activities. Ensure appropriate visual aids, are available to support by participation in activities . On 11/29/21 at 10:09 a.m., Res #42 was observed with a piece of tape on the bridge of their eye glasses. Res #42 reported their eye glasses had been broken for approximately one month and had informed social services. On 11/30/21 at 2:10 p.m., SS #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 · E2021-12-02 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent accidents for three residents (#51, 73, and #191) of three reviewed for accidents. The DON identified 19 residents who had accidents in the past six months. Findings: 1. Resident (Res) #51 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Parkinson's disease, pathological fracture of the right femur, fracture of left pubis and left femur, and repeated falls. The resident's Care Plan dated 03/08/21, read in part .The resident was known to crawl out of bed. Minimize falls by anticipating contributing factors . A quarterly assessment, dated 11/02/21, documented the resident was severely impaired with cognition, required extensive to total dependence on staff for activities of daily living, and was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. The assessment documented there were no falls since the prior assessment. An incident note, dated 07/18/21, documented Res #51 was found on the floor and had an abrasion to the knee. An incident…
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 · E2021-12-02 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — patternProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure nutritional status was maintained via tube feedings for one resident (#31) of one reviewed for weight loss with tube feedings. The census and condition form documented six residents who required tube feedings. Findings: Resident (Res) #31 was admitted on [DATE] and had diagnoses which included dysphagia. A re-admission MDS assessment, dated 10/13/21, documented the resident was severely impaired with cognition, required extensive assistance with activities of daily living, and required tube feeding. The assessment documented the resident had weight loss. A physician order, dated 10/06/21, documented the resident was to receive enteral feeding of IsoSource ( a nutritional replacement) at a rate of 55 ml/hr continuously. The order documented the resident was NPO (nothing by mouth). A care plan, dated 09/16/21, documented the resident required tube feeding related to dysphagia. The care plan documented intervention included IsoSource…
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 · E2021-12-02 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure infection control was maintained in the kitchen. The facility failed to: a. cover raw chicken in the kitchen area. b. date and label ham and cheese in the walk in refrigerator. The DM reported 82 of 83 residents received meals from the kitchen. Findings: On 11/29/21 at 9:49 a.m., during the initial tour, raw chicken was observed thawing at room temperature, was unattended, and was not covered. A large package of cheese was observed in the refrigerator, was opened to air, slices were not individually wrapped, and had no open or expiration date. A package of sandwich ham was observed in the refrigerator and did not have a open or expiration date. On 11/30/21 at 11:30 a.m., a package of sandwich ham was observed in the refrigerator and did not have a open or expiration date. On 11/30/21 at 11:35 a.m., the DM stated the raw chicken should not have been thawing at room temperature, left unattended, and uncovered. The cheese and ham should have been dated and labeled.
- Potential for harm · D2021-12-02 · tag F0655 — isolatedCreate and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a baseline care plan was provided within 48 hours of admission for one (#81) of three newly admitted residents reviewed. The DON identified 83 new admissions in the past three months. Findings: Resident (Res) #81 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included palliative care, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, and aortic insufficiency. A physician order, dated 08/25/21, documented to admit to hospice for heart disease. The EHR was reviewed and a baseline care plan was not documented. On 12/01/21 at 1:42 p.m., the DON stated the facility failed to perform an an baseline care plan within 48 hours of admission.
- Potential for harm · D2021-12-02 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — isolatedImplement 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a gradual dose reduction for a psychotropic medication was conducted and a rationale was documented for one resident (#73) of five whose medications were reviewed. The census and condition form documented 22 residents who received psychotropic medications. Findings: Resident (Res) #73 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included schizophrenia, anxiety, and major depressive disorder. A physician order, dated 09/21/20, documented lurasidone HCl (an antipsychotic medication) 60 mg a day for schizophrenia. A physician order, dated 02/02/21, documented Klonopin (a sedative medication) one mg two times a day for anxiety. A progress note, dated 10/26/21, documented a pharmacy recommendation to reduce Res #73's Klonopin dosage. The physician documented to continue the medication the same with no documented rationale. A quarterly assessment, dated 11/16/21, documented Res #73 was cognitively intact. The assessment documented 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.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COX, STEVEN | Individual | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/21/2005 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 3 rows in the source record cover these 1 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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.
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 375489. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-01-09, 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.