Tulsa Nursing Center

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

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.

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.

51.4% 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 35 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 62.2% 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 37 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 0.25 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 35% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 104 beds and averages 100.9 residents a day — about 97% occupied, or roughly 3 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.17 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.24 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.27 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 2.92 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.28 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.26 to 0.18 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 51% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

20 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 10 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · D2026-04-30 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure EBP were in place during catheter care for 1 (#7) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for infection control.The DON stated 25 residents in the facility were on EBP.Findings:On 04/29/26 at 11:03 a.m., CNA #1 and CNA #2 were observed providing catheter care to Res #7. CNA #1 and CNA #2 were not observed to wear gowns while providing direct patient care.An Infection Control policy, dated 04/01/24, read in part, Enhanced Barrier Precautions: an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms that employ targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities.A physician's order, dated 01/07/26, showed Res #7 had a catheter and was to receive catheter care on every shift.A physician's order, dated 01/16/26, showed Res #7 was placed on EBP.A quarterly assessment, dated 03/27/26, showed Res #7 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (a test for cognition) score of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The assessment showed Res #7 had an indwelling…

  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.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-03-12 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — pattern
  Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure care plans were reviewed and revised after each assessment for 2 (#5 and #18) of 21 sampled residents whose care plans were reviewed. The administrator identified 96 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #5 had diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The care plan showed the last review was completed on 09/11/24. Review of the clinical record showed a quarterly assessment had been completed on 01/21/25. On 03/12/25 at 2:05 p.m., corporate MDS coordinator #1 stated Resident #5's care plan was currently being reviewed and revised. They stated the last review was completed on 09/11/24. Corporate MDS Coordinator #1 stated care plans were to be reviewed after each assessment and as needed. They stated they did not know why Resident #5's care plan had not been reviewed since 09/11/24. 2. Resident #18 had diagnoses which included depression. The care plan showed the last review was completed on 12/04/24. Review of the clinical record showed a quarterly assessment had been…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-03-12 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — pattern
  Ensure 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 monthly medication reviews were completed for 4 (#2, 16, 66, and #69)of 5 sampled residents who were reviewed for unnecessary medications. The administrator and corporate nurse consultant identified 96 residents who received medications. Findings: 1. Resident #2 had diagnoses which included depression. A Medication Monitoring Medication Regimen Review and Reporting policy, dated January 2024, read in part, The consultant pharmacist reviews the medication regimen and medical chart of each resident at least monthly to appropriately monitor the medication regimen and ensure that the medications each resident receives are clinically indicated.The findings are communicated to the director of nursing or designee and the medical director. These findings are documented and filed with other consultant pharmacist recommendations in the resident's chart. The quarterly assessment, dated 02/28/25, showed the resident's cognition was moderately impaired with a BIMS of 11 and received an antipsychotic medication, an anticoagulant,…

  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.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-03-12 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
  Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified of a significant weight loss for 1 (#18) of 4 sampled residents who were reviewed for nutrition/weight loss. The administrator and corporate nurse consultant identified seven residents who had weight loss. Findings: Resident #18 had diagnoses which included altered nutritional status. A nutrition assessment, dated 10/24/24, showed Resident #18 weighed 188.4 pounds. Review of the vital signs for Resident #18 showed their admit weight on 10/16/24 was 185 pounds and a weight on 03/03/25 was 166.6 pounds, which was greater than 10% in five months. A quarterly assessment, dated 01/21/25, showed no concern for nutrition and showed no weight loss in the past six months. A follow up nutrition note, dated 02/20/25, showed the resident weighed 159.9 pounds with no recommendations. A care plan, dated 03/12/25, showed a concern for diet which included a goal Resident #18 would maintain their weight over the next 90 days. The care plan showed interventions which included dietitian referral as…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-03-12 · tag F0625 — isolated
  Notify the resident or the resident’s representative in writing how long the nursing home will hold the resident’s bed in cases of transfer to a hospital or therapeutic leave.
  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 notification of bed hold was provided for 1 (#91) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for hospitalization. The administrator identified 96 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #91 had diagnoses which included anemia. An undated Bedhold policy, read in part, Upon request, the Facility shall hold the Resident's bed when the Resident is away from the Facility for hospitalization or therapeutic home visit, as long as the applicable bedhold fee is paid. The progress note, dated 02/12/25, showed the resident was sent to the hospital. Review of the clinical record did not show the resident or resident representative had been notified in writing of the bed-hold policy before transfer to the hospital. On 03/11/25 at 12:11 p.m., LPN #1 stated when a resident was transferred to the hospital they provided a copy of the face sheet and active physician orders. They stated they notified the family via phone to inform them their family members' belongings would stay in their room until they returned from 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.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-03-12 · tag F0637 — isolated
  Assess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
  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 significant change assessment was completed within 14 days of electing the hospice benefit for 1 (#16) of 1 sampled resident who was reviewed for hospice services. The corporate regional nurse consultant and administrator identified 12 residents who received hospice services. Findings: Resident #16 had diagnoses which included dementia. The physician telephone order, dated 07/29/24, read in part, Admit to Hospice to eval and treat. The significant change assessment, dated 08/21/24, showed the resident had a condition or chronic disease that may result in a life expectancy of less than six months. On 03/12/25 at 1:38 p.m., corporate MDS coordinator #1 stated when a resident was admitted to hospice services a significant change assessment was to be completed within 14 days. They stated they would need to check on the significant change assessment for Resident #16. On 03/12/25 at 2:07 p.m., the DON reviewed the order for hospice services and the significant change assessment and stated the previous MDS coordinator…

  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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-03-12 · tag F0641 — isolated
  Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure assessments were accurate for 2 (#5 and #18) of 21 sampled residents whose assessments were reviewed. The administrator identified 96 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #5 had diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The quarterly assessment, dated 01/21/25, showed the resident received an anticoagulant medication. Review of the medication administration record, dated January 2025, did not show the resident received an anticoagulant medication. On 03/06/25 at 3:48 p.m., the DON reviewed the January 2025 medication administration record and the quarterly assessment dated [DATE] and stated Resident #5 had not received an anticoagulant medication. The DON stated they did not know why the assessment was coded incorrectly. The DON stated the MDS coordinator who completed the assessment no longer worked at the facility. 2. Resident #18 had diagnoses which included hypertension. Review of the clinical…

  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.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-03-12 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolated
  Provide 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing

  Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a physician order was obtained for an indwelling urinary catheter for 1 (#100) of 3 sampled residents who were reviewed for an indwelling urinary catheter. The corporate regional nurse consultant and the administrator identified five residents who had an indwelling urinary catheter. Findings: Resident #100 had diagnoses which included acute kidney failure. An admission assessment, dated 12/12/24, showed the resident had an indwelling urinary catheter. Review of the electronic clinical record showed the resident had received catheter care but did not show a physician order for the use of the indwelling urinary catheter. On 03/12/25 at 4:26 p.m., the DON stated Resident #100 was in the facility for approximately 10 days. They stated the admissions nurse, assistant director of nursing, or themselves entered physician orders upon admission and did not know why the order for the use of an indwelling urinary catheter had not been put into the electronic clinical record.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-03-12 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolated
  Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
  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 significant weight loss was addressed for 1 (#18) of 2 sampled residents who were reviewed for nutrition. The administrator and corporate nurse consultant identified seven residents who had weight loss. Findings: Resident #18 had diagnoses which included depression, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, and altered nutritional status. A nutrition assessment, dated 10/24/24, showed Resident #18 weighed 188.4 pounds. Review of the vital signs for Resident #18 showed their admit weight on 10/16/24 was 185 pounds and a weight on 03/03/25 was 166.6 pounds, which was greater than 10% in five months. A quarterly assessment, dated 01/21/25, showed no concern for nutrition and showed no weight loss in the past six months. A follow up nutrition note, dated 02/20/25, showed Resident #18 weighed 159.9 pounds with no recommendations. A care plan, dated 03/12/25, showed a concern for diet which included a goal Resident #18 would maintain their weight over the next 90 days. The care plan showed interventions which included dietitian…

  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.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-03-12 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolated
  Make 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 call lights within reach for 1 (#36) of 1 sampled resident who was reviewed for call lights. The administrator reported 96 residents resided in the facility. Findings: On 03/05/25 at 9:04 a.m., the call light for Resident #36 was observed clipped to the fitted sheet and hanging down to the floor, out of the resident's reach. On 03/12/25 at 4:13 p.m., the call light for Resident #36 was observed clipped to the resident's blanket, hanging down to the floor, out of the resident's reach. A care plan, dated 12/04/25, showed a diagnosis of hemiplegia or hemiparesis. The care plan instructed staff to place the call light within the resident's reach. On 03/05/25 at 9:04 a.m., Resident #36 stated sometimes the call light was out of reach and they could not use it to get help when they needed to. They stated their roommate would use their call light. On 03/12/25 at 4:24 p.m., CNA #1 stated residents used their call light to get help from the staff and it was the responsibility of the staff to ensure the call…

  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.

  Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to STONEGATE SENIOR LIVING — 24 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 →

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

CMS files one row per role, so the 25 rows in the source record cover these 18 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

9 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 84% 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. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

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