Tuttle Care Center
104 Southeast 4th Street, Tuttle, OK 73089 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 52 certified beds · (405) 381-3363 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 harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jul 2024
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0605, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
- about 22% of its spending goes to commonly-owned related companies
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 3 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 29.3% | 13.6% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.3% | 3.3% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 1.9% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.1% | 2.8% | 2.0% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.9% | 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 | 6.7% | 4.7% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 28.8% | 13.7% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.7% | 25.7% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.3% | 94.6% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.8% | 4.7% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 23.7% | 17.1% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.8% | 17.5% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.8% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 58.1% | 74.1% | 79.4% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.33 | 2.31 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.21 | 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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.24 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 33% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 14% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.7%CMS range 8.0–17.1 | 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.95 | 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 52 beds and averages 42.0 residents a day — about 81% occupied, or roughly 10 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.26 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 2.17 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 3.06 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.34 on weekdays — 8% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.23 to 0.27 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 50% 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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · E2025-05-30 · tag F0605 — failed to not use drugs as a restraint — patternPrevent the use of unnecessary psychotropic medications or use medications that may restrain a resident's ability to function.
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 physician's response to a gradual dose reduction was implemented for 1 (#18) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medication. The administrator identified 44 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A physician's order, dated 01/20/23, showed sertraline hydrochloric acid (Zoloft) (an antidepressant) 100 mg, give one tablet by mouth one time a day for depression. A Consultant Pharmacist/Physician Communication form, dated 08/26/24, showed a pharmacist gradual dose reduction recommendation for sertraline (Zoloft) 100 mg daily. The communication form showed a physician's response dated 09/09/24, to reduce Zoloft to 75 mg by mouth daily. There was no documentation Zoloft was reduced to 75 mg daily. On 05/30/25 at 11:45 a.m., the DON stated if a physician decreased a medication dose on a gradual dose reduction recommendation, they would write the order and scan to the resident's chart. On 05/30/25 at 11:46 a.m., the DON stated they would implement the changes the same day or the next day. On 05/30/25 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 · E2025-05-30 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was developed to address anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder for 1 (#44) of 1 sampled resident's care plan reviewed for serious mental health diagnosis. The administrator identified 44 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #44's admission MDS assessment, with an ARD of 03/19/25, showed they had psychatric disorders of anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder. Resident #44's care plan, initiated on 03/27/25, did not address the diagnoses of anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder. Resident #44's admission Record, dated 04/29/25, showed they were admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder. On 05/29/25 at 10:20 a.m., MDS coordinator #1 stated the care plan addressed depression, but did not address anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder. MDS Coordinator #1 stated the care plan should be developed to address the diagnosis so staff were aware of their current condition.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-30 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident's discharge assessment was encoded and transmitted for 1 (#11) of 12 sampled residents whose assessments were reviewed. The administrator identified 44 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Physician Discharge Summary, dated 12/30/24, showed Resident #11 had diagnoses which included dementia and bipolar disorder. A nursing note, dated 12/30/24 at 11:49 a.m., read in part, resident out of facility at 11:30 via stretcher, discharge paperwork given to transport and poa [power of attorney]. A Physician Discharge Summary, dated 12/30/24 at 1:43 p.m., showed the resident was discharged on 12/30/24 to another facility. There was no documentation a discharge resident assessment was completed. On 05/28/25 at 11:13 a.m., MDS coordinator #1 stated they did their discharge assessments on the day the resident discharged . On 05/28/25 at 11:15 a.m., MDS coordinator #1 stated Resident #11 discharged to another facility on 12/30/24. On 05/28/25 at 11:17 a.m., MDS coordinator #1 stated they did not complete 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 · D2025-05-30 · tag F0883 — failed to offer flu and pneumonia vaccines — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures for flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to administer a pneumococcal vaccine as ordered for 1 (#43) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for immunizations. The administrator identified 44 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An undated facility policy titled Pneumococcal Vaccine, read in part, All residents will be offered pneumococcal vaccines to aid in preventing pneumonia/pneumococcal infections. An admission record, with an initial admit date of 01/10/25, showed Resident #43 had diagnoses which included asthma and protein calorie malnutrition. A Pneumococcal Vaccine Consent Form, dated 02/18/25, showed the resident's representative gave consent for the pneumococcal vaccine. Resident #43's quarterly resident assessment, dated 04/17/25, showed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score of 5. A physician's order, dated 04/24/25, showed pneumovax 23 (pneumococcal vaccine) injectable 25 microgram/0.5 ml, inject 0.5 ml intramuscularly one time only for prevention for one day. An order administration 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 · D2024-10-17 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were allowed to exercise their right to smoke regardless of diagnoses for two (#1 and #2) of three sampled residents reviewed for resident rights. The DON identified 43 residents resided in the facility. Eight residents smoked. Findings: A facility COVID-19 policy, revised 05/01/24, did not document residents with COVID-19 would be prohibited from smoking. Alternative means to ensure residents with COVID-19 were allowed to smoke were not addressed in the policy. A facility training report, dated 09/23/24, documented a subject of COVID SMOKING. 1. Res #1 had diagnoses which included COPD. A Smoking Policy - Residents, dated 06/07/24, signed by Res #1, did not document residents with COVID-19 were prohibited from smoking. A progress note, dated 09/26/24 at 5:08 a.m., documented Res #1 had tested positive for COVID-19. A progress note, dated 09/27/24 at 10:20 a.m., documented Res #1 was upset because they were not allowed to go outside to smoke. A progress note, dated 10/01/24 at 6:10 p.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 · D2024-10-17 · tag F0661 — isolatedEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete discharge summaries for two (#1 and #4) of two sampled residents reviewed for discharge. The DON identified three residents discharged from the facility within the last 30 days. Findings: 1. Res #1 discharged from the facility on 10/02/24. A record review documented no discharge summary had been completed. 2. Res #4 discharged from the facility on 09/05/24. A record review documented no discharge summary had been completed. On 10/17/24 at 1:11 p.m., the MDS coordinator stated the nurses on the floor at the time of discharge complete the discharge summaries. On 10/17/24 at 1:24 p.m., LPN #2 stated discharge summaries were documented under the forms tab of the EHR. They reviewed the charts for Res #1 and Res #4 and stated they had not been completed.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-25 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to prevent physical abuse for one (#1) of six sampled residents reviewed for abuse allegations. The administrator identified 45 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], documented Res #1 was cognitively intact, and was dependent on staff for most ADLs. An undated witness statement, documented CMA #1 had noticed a bruise on Resident #1's right hand and wrist. Resident #1 reported that CNA #1 pushed all their weight on their hand that was holding the bed rail, thereby smashing Resident #1's hand between the wall and handrail. CMA #1 heard Resident #1 tell CNA #1 they wanted someone else to feed them. CMA #1 stated when they went back to Resident #1's room approximately 15 minutes later, CNA #1 was still feeding Resident #1 even though they were saying please stop feeding me, I don't want anymore. CMA #1 reported they left the room. A witness statement, dated 07/11/24, documented that Resident #1 reported to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-25 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of abuse was reported within 2 hours to OSDH for one (#1) of six sampled residents reviewed for allegations of abuse. The administrator identified 45 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A witness statement, dated 07/11/24, documented that Resident #1 reported to CNA #4 that CNA #1 told them they would kill them. An incident report was filed with OSDH on 07/12/24 at 3:10 p.m., the incident date was documented as 07/10/24. On 07/23/24 at 2:00 p.m., the Administrator reported they were not notified of the incident until the next morning. The staff completed Abuse training in June. Abuse training was provided again on July 12th in response to this incident.
- Potential for harm · E2023-02-16 · tag F0582 — patternGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide the ABN form to residents who received skilled services and afterwards stayed in the facility for three (#3, 31, and #32) of three residents sampled for beneficiary protection notification review. The MDS coordinator identified 22 residents who had been discharged from skilled services in the last six months. Findings: According to Res #3's medical record, Res #3 started skilled services on 11/01/22 and was discharged on 11/13/22. The ABN form was not provided. According to Res #31's medical record, Res #31 started skilled services on 02/02/23 and was discharged on 02/029/23. The ABN form was not provided. According to Res #32's medical record, Res #32 started skilled services on 10/28/22 and was discharged on 11/17/22. The ABN form was not provided. On 02/15/23 at 10:38 a.m., the MDS coordinator was asked if residents/residents beneficiary was provided the SN ABN CMS-10055 form. She reported she was unaware that they needed to sign it also.
- Potential for harm · D2023-02-16 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to offer the choice to formulate an advance directive for one (#40) of 14 sampled residents reviewed for advanced directives. The Residents Census and Conditions of Residents reports documented 39 residents resided in the facility and 14 residents had advanced directives. Findings: Res #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. There was no documentation the resident was offered the choice to formulate an advanced directive. On 02/15/23 at 3:11 p.m., the DON reported the resident's parents were her power of attorney and they had not returned the paperwork. On 02/15/23 at 3:15 p.m., the administrator reported since they had not received power of attorney paperwork they had the resident sign her admission paperwork including the advanced directive acknowledgement. The administrator provided the resident's admission packet. On 02/15/23 at 3:40 p.m., the resident's admission packet was reviewed, the resident's advanced directive acknowledgement was not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-02-16 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on record review, observation, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to provide baths/showers as scheduled for one (#17) of two sampled residents. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 39 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #17 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hallucinations, and cellulitis. A care plan, dated 01/27/23, documented the resident required limited assistance of one staff with showering at least two times weekly and as necessary. A bath/shower log documented the resident had received two showers, 02/01/23 and 02/10/23, since admission. On 02/15/23 at 1:00 p.m., the DON was asked if the resident's showers were charted on the bath/shower log. The DON reported showers and refusals are supposed to be charted on the log. The DON reported if the resident refused, the CNAs turn in paper shower forms. There were no shower forms provided.
- Potential for harm · D2023-02-16 · 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 — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on record review, observation, and interview, it was determined the facility failed to ensure oxygen was administered only when ordered by a physician for one (#40) of one sampled resident reviewed for respiratory services. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 10 residents received respiratory treatment. Findings: Res #40 had diagnoses which included heart failure, anemia, schizophrenia, and hypertension. On 02/15/23 at 8:43 a.m., the resident was observed sitting up on the side of the bed with oxygen on via nasal cannula. The oxygen concentrator was set at 3.5 l/m. There was no documentation the resident had a physician's order to receive oxygen. On 02/15/23 at 2:45 p.m., the DON was asked if the resident had an order for oxygen. The DON replied she would have to check. On 02/15/23 at 3:13 p.m., the DON reported the resident had oxygen at home. The DON reported the resident was placed on oxygen and the doctor should be in the facility today and decide if the resident needed it for medical reason or comfort reasons.
- 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 SOUTHWEST LTC — 10 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 | 2.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 1 of 5 | 2.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
The other 9 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BHCP OK3 SPONSOR, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 25% | since 10/01/2015 |
| SOUTHWEST LTC OKLAHOMA HOLDINGS, LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 75% | since 10/01/2015 |
| QUALITY CARE GIVERS INC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2015 |
| RONALD R PAYNE PC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2015 |
| SOUTHWEST LTC, LTD | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2015 |
| BRASHIER, CRAIG | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2015 |
| PAYNE, RONALD | Individual | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 10/01/2015 |
| SOUTHWEST LTC MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 12/01/2015 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
6 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 76% 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 $763K paid to related parties — landlords or management companies under common ownership — equal to about 22% of its total expenses. Money routed to affiliated companies can leave a home’s own books looking lean while owners still profit; it is the mechanism regulators watch most closely in private-equity and REIT deals.
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 375428. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-30, 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.