ADA CARE CENTER

931 NORTH COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, ADA, OK 74820 (580) 332-3631
For profit - Individual 85 Beds IHS MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS Data: November 2025 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
14/100
#145 of 282 in OK
Last Inspection: February 2025

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Ada Care Center in Ada, Oklahoma, has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor quality with significant concerns about safety and care. It ranks #145 out of 282 facilities in Oklahoma, placing it in the bottom half, and #1 out of 3 in Pontotoc County, meaning it is the best option locally, but still lacks overall quality. The facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 4 in 2023 to 5 in 2025, and its overall star rating is low at 2 out of 5. Staffing is a major concern, rated at 1 out of 5 stars with a 64% turnover rate, which is higher than the state average, indicating instability in staff. However, the facility has no fines on record, which is a positive sign, and it boasts better RN coverage than 75% of other facilities in Oklahoma, suggesting that registered nurses are available to address potential issues. Notably, there have been serious incidents, including a critical failure to properly investigate allegations of sexual abuse against a resident, which raises significant safety concerns for families considering this facility. Overall, while there are some strengths, the serious issues with care and staffing should be carefully weighed by families.

Trust Score
F
14/100
In Oklahoma
#145/282
Bottom 49%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
4 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
64% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Oklahoma facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 20 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Oklahoma. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 4 issues
2025: 5 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Oklahoma average (2.6)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 64%

18pts above Oklahoma avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Chain: IHS MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (64%)

16 points above Oklahoma average of 48%

The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record

3 life-threatening
Feb 2025 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to revise care plans related to smoking interventions for two (#2 and #43) of two residents sampled for smoking safety. The adm...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to revise care plans related to smoking interventions for two (#2 and #43) of two residents sampled for smoking safety. The administrator identified 20 residents who smoked. Findings: An undated Smoking Policy, read in parts, Purpose: to provide maximum safety to all residents at all times .Smoking will be allowed in smoking areas ONLY .Any restrictions will be noted in the resident's record .Smoking privileges will be addressed in the Care Plan .Smoking materials will be kept in a designated area accessible only by staff .Residents assessed as likely to drop ashes on their clothing or self will wear a smoking apron provided by the Center. A Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered policy, dated March 2022, read in parts, The care plan interventions are derived from a thorough analysis of the information gathered as part of the comprehensive assessment .Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change. 1. Resident #43 had diagnoses which included diabetes, seasonal allergies, anxiety, and chronic pain. A Smoking Assessment, dated 11/22/24, documented Resident #43 could smoke independently and the facility did not need to store the resident's lighter and cigarettes. An MDS assessment for Resident #43, dated 11/23/24, documented the resident was cognitively intact. A Care Plan for Resident #43, dated 12/03/24, documented the resident was a smoker. The care plan did not address smoking safety or interventions. The care plan documented the resident had a self-care performance deficit related to impaired mobility. On 02/02/25 at 2:55 p.m., Resident #43 reported they smoked independently. They stated they kept their cigarettes and lighter in their room and could go out to smoke anytime they wished. On 02/03/25 at 2:40 p.m., Resident #43 was observed smoking on the back porch, approximately four to five feet from the back door, which was not the designated smoking area. The resident was observed sitting on their scooter smoking and visiting with another resident. On 02/04/25 at 9:02 a.m., Resident #43 was observed outside on the back porch sitting on their scooter and smoking. An unidentified resident was observed to join them and sat down to smoke also. A sign was observed on the back door which reminded residents this area was not a designated smoking area and to go to the covered awning to smoke. On 02/04/25 at 9:08 a.m., maintenance staff reported there was not a receptacle on the back porch for smokers to dispose of their cigarettes because they were not supposed to be smoking there. They stated there was adequate receptacles under the awning in the designated smoking area and residents had been told numerous times not to smoke on the back porch. On 02/04/25 at 3:16 p.m., the DON reported all smokers should be going to the designated smoking area, but it had been an ongoing problem with them smoking on the back porch. The DON reported residents were assessed individually and then determined whether they could keep their smoking materials or if they would need to be kept at the nurse's desk. The DON stated the resident's care plan should include interventions and safety measures related to smoking. 2. Resident #2 had diagnoses which included cerebrovascular accident. A smoking assessment, dated 11/18/24, documented Resident #2 required supervision and a smoking apron while smoking for safety. A care plan, dated 01/15/25, documented no intervention related to Resident #2 requiring a smoking apron while smoking. An MDS assessment, dated 01/30/25, documented Resident #2's range of motion was impaired on one side of the upper and lower extremities. The assessment documented the resident's cognition was severly impaired. On 02/04/25 at 3:45 p.m., Resident #2 was observed smoking without a smoking apron. On 02/04/25 3:54 p.m., CNA #5 reported they were not aware of any current resident in the facility who required a smoking apron. On 02/05/25 at 12:45 p.m., the MDS coordinator reported smoking and smoking interventions should be included on the resident's care plan.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an as needed (PRN) medication for anxiety had a documented rational for continued use beyond 14 days for one (#11) of five residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure an as needed (PRN) medication for anxiety had a documented rational for continued use beyond 14 days for one (#11) of five residents sampled for unnecessary medications. The DON reported 14 residents received anti-anxiety medications. Findings: A Psychotropic Medication Use policy, dated July 2022, read in part, Psychotropic medications are not prescribed or given on a PRN basis unless that medication is necessary to treat a diagnosed specific condition that is documented in the clinical record. a. PRN orders for psychotropic medications are limited to 14 days. (1) For psychotropic medications that are NOT antipsychotic's: If the prescriber or attending physician believes it is appropriate to extend the PRN order beyond 14 days, [they] will document the rational for extending the use and include the duration for the PRN order. Resident #11 had diagnoses which included heart failure, hypertension, and anxiety/depression. A care plan, dated 03/18/22, documented the resident received anti-anxiety medications r/t anxiety. A Physician Order, dated 11/15/24, documented Ativan (benzodiazepine) 0.5 mg tablet by mouth in the morning for anxiety and give 0.5 mg tablet by mouth every eight hours as needed for anxiety. A pharmacy report, dated 12/06/24, read in parts, CMS requires that orders for non-antipsychotic psychotropic medications that are given on a PRN basis be limited to 14 days unless otherwise indicated .If extended use is required, the clinical rationale for continued need and duration of therapy must be provided to be in compliance with regulatory requirements .May we attempt to D/C or change this order to routine? The report documented the physician disagreed with the recommendation and documented, adds to routine dose. An MDS assessment, dated 12/13/24, documented the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. On 02/04/25 at 10:40 a.m., the ADON reported the PRN order for Ativan was part of the routine Ativan order. On 02/04/25 at 10:45 a.m., the DON reported the PRN order for Ativan was part of the routine order. The DON reported they knew if the Ativan was ordered PRN it had to be evaluated every two weeks.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure adequate safety for smokers for two (#2 and #43) of two residents sampled for smoking safety. The administrator ident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure adequate safety for smokers for two (#2 and #43) of two residents sampled for smoking safety. The administrator identified 20 residents who smoked. Findings: An undated Smoking Policy, read in parts, Purpose: to provide maximum safety to all residents at all times .Smoking will be allowed in smoking areas ONLY .Any restrictions will be noted in the resident's record .Smoking privileges will be addressed in the Care Plan .Smoking materials will be kept in a designated area accessible only by staff .Residents assessed as likely to drop ashes on their clothing or self will wear a smoking apron provided by the Center. 1. Resident #43 had diagnoses which included diabetes, seasonal allergies, anxiety, and chronic pain. A Smoking Assessment, dated 11/22/24, documented Resident #43 could smoke independently and the facility did not need to store their lighter and cigarettes. An MDS assessment for Resident #43, dated 11/23/24, documented the resident was cognitively intact. A Care Plan for Resident #43, dated 12/03/24, documented the resident was a smoker. The care plan did not address smoking safety. The care plan documented the resident had a self-care performance deficit related to impaired mobility. On 02/02/25 at 2:55 p.m., Resident #43 reported they smoked independently. They stated they kept their cigarettes and lighter in their room and could go out to smoke anytime they wished. On 02/03/25 at 2:40 p.m., Resident #43 was observed smoking on the back porch, approximately four to five feet from the back door, which was not the designated smoking area. On 02/04/25 at 9:02 a.m., Resident #43 was observed outside on the back porch sitting on their scooter and smoking. An unidentified resident was observed to join them and sat down to smoke also. A sign was observed on the back door which reminded residents this area was not a designated smoking area and to go to the covered awning to smoke. On 02/04/25 at 9:08 a.m., maintenance staff reported there was not a receptacle on the back porch for smokers to dispose of their cigarettes because they were not supposed to be smoking there. They stated there was adequate receptacles under the awning in the designated smoking area and residents had been told numerous times not to smoke on the back porch. On 02/04/25 at 3:16 p.m., the DON reported all smokers should be going to the designated smoking area, but it had been an ongoing problem with them smoking on the back porch. The DON reported residents were assessed individually and then determined whether they could keep their smoking materials or if they would need to be kept at the nurse's desk. 2. Resident #2 had diagnoses which included cerebrovascular accident. A smoking assessment, dated 11/18/24, documented Resident #2 required supervision and a smoking apron while smoking for safety. A care plan, dated 01/15/25, documented Resident #2 required assistance from staff with smoking materials. An MDS assessment, dated 01/30/25, documented Resident #2's range of motion was impaired on one side of the upper and lower extremities. The assessment documented the resident's cognition was severly impaired. On 02/03/25 at 9:47 a.m., Resident #2 was followed by an unknown staff member outside the facility to the smoking area to smoke. The unknown staff member had the resident's cigarettes and lighter and lit the resident's cigarette. The staff member was observed helping the resident put ashes in the ashtray. The resident was observed not wearing a smoking apron for safety. On 02/04/25 at 3:45 p.m., CNA #5 was observed outside with Resident #2 while the resident smoked. The resident was observed not wearing a smoking apron. On 02/04/25 3:54 p.m., CNA #5 reported not being aware of any current resident in the facility that required a smoking apron. On 02/04/25 3:56 p.m., the DON reported Resident #2 was required to wear a smoking apron for safety.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was completely covered while being served. The administrator reported 57 residents received meals from the kitch...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was completely covered while being served. The administrator reported 57 residents received meals from the kitchen. Findings: A Preventing Foodborne Illness-Food Handling policy, dated July 2014, read in part, Food will be stored, prepared, handled and served so that the risk of foodborne illness is minimized. On 02/02/25 at 11:40 a.m., residents were observed during the noon meal. Dessert was observed to be served on a saucer with a plastic lid sitting on top of the dessert. The plastic lid did not completely cover the cake being served for dessert. On 02/03/25 at 8:17 a.m., cook #2 was asked about serving the desserts on an uncovered saucer the previous day. The cook stated they were out of bowls and the plastic wrap was not the proper size. On 02/03/25 at 8:19 a.m., the dietary manager was asked about the cake that was served uncovered the previous day. They stated the administrator had ordered some dessert dishes and they were waiting on them to come in.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to: a. ensure proper disposal of the lancet and blood contaminated glucometer strip for one (#105) of two sampled residents rev...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to: a. ensure proper disposal of the lancet and blood contaminated glucometer strip for one (#105) of two sampled residents reviewed for blood glucose monitoring; b. to properly dispose of soiled PPE supplies for two (#2 and #204); and c. failed to use proper PPE for enhanced barrier precautions for one (#2) of five sampled residents reviewed for infection control. The administrator reported 59 residents resided in the facility. The DON reported 12 residents with blood glucose monitoring. Findings: A Obtaining a Fingerstick Glucose level policy, dated October 2011, read in part, Dispose of lancet in the sharps disposal container, Discard disposable supplies in the designated containers. A Enhanced Barrier Precautions policy, dated 04/01/24, read in part, EBP are used in conjunction with standard precautions and expand the use of PPE to donning of gown and gloves during high-contact resident care activities. Position a trash can inside the resident room and near the exit for discarding PPE after removal, prior to exit of the room. 1. A physician's order for Resident #105, dated 01/29/25, documented the resident would receive Novolog insulin per sliding scale instructions related to diabetes. A care plan for Resident #105, dated 01/30/25, documented the resident had diabetes mellitus. On 02/03/25 at 10:45 a.m., LPN #1 was observed to prepare supplies for Resident #105's finger stick blood sugar test. After the finger stick blood sugar was obtained, the LPN removed their gloves and rolled the strip and the lancet up in the glove and disposed of it in the trash in the resident's room. On 02/03/25 at 11:17 a.m., LPN #1 reported they usually disposed of biohazard materials in the sharps container. The LPN was asked about the facility policy for proper disposal and they stated the lancet/strip should have been put in the biohazard. On 02/03/25 at 11:24 a.m., the administrator reported the facility policy was to dispose of biohazard in the sharps container. On 02/03/25 at 11:29 a.m., the ADON reported staff should dispose of all biohazard in the sharps container. 2. Resident #204 had diagnoses which included neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. A physician's order, dated 04/22/22, read in part, Cleanse suprapubic catheter site with normal saline solution, pat dry, apply a split dressing, and secure with tape daily. A care plan intervention, dated 04/20/24, read in parts, Use enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) .Wear at least gloves/gown .EBP is employed when performing high-contact device care or use: urinary catheter and any skin opening requiring a dressing or other devices/conditions recommended by the CDC. On 02/04/25 at 2:00 p.m., Resident #204's door to their room was observed with enhanced barrier signage. On 02/04/25 at 2:00 p.m., LPN #3 was observed donning a gown and gloves before entering Resident #204's room to provide catheter care. The LPN exited the resident's room with used catheter care supplies and wearing a used gown. The LPN was observed to discard used supplies and PPE used for catheter care in the trash can on the treatment cart in the hallway. 3. Resident #2 had diagnoses which included peripheral vascular disease. A care plan, dated 04/01/24, read in parts, Use enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). Wear at least gloves/gown .EBP is employed when performing high-contact device care or use: wound care - any skin opening requiring a dressing or other devices/conditions recommended by the CDC. Physician orders, dated 02/03/25, read in part, Clean with normal saline, apply collagen, cover with bordered gauze 3 times weekly and as needed. The orders also read, Clean with normal saline, apply Medihoney to right lateral ankle topically, cover with bordered foam 3 times weekly and as needed. On 02/04/25 at 2:45 p.m., LPN #3 was observed to provide wound care to resident #2's right shin, right heel, and right ankle. The wounds on the right ankle and shin were observed to be open wounds that required dressings. The LPN was observed performing wound care with gloves, but failed to don a gown for enhanced barrier precautions. The LPN was observed to discard used wound care supplies and used gloves in the trash can on the side of the nurses treatment cart in the hallway outside the resident's room. On 02/04/25 at 2:50 p.m., LPN #3 reported they had not seen the EBP sign on Resident #2's door and should have worn a gown to perform the wound care. The LPN reported using the trash can on the treatment cart to discard their used supplies after exiting a resident's room was normal routine. The LPN reported they made sure the trash can was emptied two to three times a shift. On 02/04/25 at 2:59 p.m., the DON reported staff should follow enhanced barrier precautions (using a gown and gloves) when providing care for all residents with wounds and catheters. The DON reported used PPE and used treatment supplies should be discarded in a trash can in the resident's room before exiting.
Nov 2023 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a quarterly assessment was completed within the required timeframe for one (#46) of 19 sampled residents' assessments reviewed. The ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a quarterly assessment was completed within the required timeframe for one (#46) of 19 sampled residents' assessments reviewed. The administrator reported 55 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #46's medical record documented the last quarterly assessment was dated 07/13/23, and a quarterly assessment was due in October 2023. The resident's record did not contain a quarterly assessment, dated for October 2023. On 11/21/23 at 4:18 p.m., the corporate MDS coordinator reviewed and reported the system did not identify the missed quarterly assessment or a discharge assessment. They reported the MDS would be corrected and did not know why it did not show up in the system.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate coding of MDS assessments for one (#22) related to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure accurate coding of MDS assessments for one (#22) related to falls and for one (#23) related to CPAP machine usage of 19 sampled residents whose MDS assessments were reviewed. The administrator reported 55 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Comprehensive Assessments policy, dated March 2022, read in part, .A significant error is an error in an assessment where .the resident's overall clinical status is not accurately represented (i.e., miscoded) .A significant error differs from a significant change because it reflects incorrect coding of the MDS and not an actual significant change in the resident's health status . 1. Res #22's physician order, dated 10/23/23, documented PT/OT/ST to evaluate and treat for Part A services. The care plan, dated 11/04/23, documented the resident had a fall next to their bed and their right elbow was red with no bruising or edema noted. A quarterly assessment, dated 11/10/23, documented diagnosis which included cardiovascular accident and hemiplegia/hemiparesis. The assessment documented no falls. On 11/27/23 at 11:50 a.m., MDS coordinator reported they made a correction to the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] to show one fall with injury (bruise to right elbow) on 11/04/23 and one fall without injury on 11/05/23. They reported they missed it on the MDS assessment. 2. Res #23's physician order, dated 04/01/22, documented CPAP at 10 cm H20 with humidification and supplies, apply at HS, remove upon waking related to obstructive sleep apnea. An annual MDS assessment, dated 08/25/23, documented diagnosis which included, HTN, asthma, and obstructive sleep apnea. The assessment documented the resident had an invasive mechanical ventilator and was marked no related to a non-invasive mechanical ventilator (BiPap/CPAP). A care plan, dated 09/14/23, documented the resident had sleep apnea, wore a CPAP at 10 cm H20 with humidification, apply at HS, and remove upon waking. On 11/22/23 at 8:53 a.m., Res #23 reported they used a CPAP machine at night. On 11/22/23 at 10:28 a.m., the MDS coordinator was asked about the CPAP documented on the MDS as an invasive mechanical ventilator. They reported that was an error and it should be reversed.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to have a registered nurse on duty eight hours a day and/or seven days a week. The administrator reported 55 residents resided in the facilit...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to have a registered nurse on duty eight hours a day and/or seven days a week. The administrator reported 55 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A Oklahoma Health Care Authority Report documented three days on the weekends in August 2023, five days on the weekends in September 2023, and two days on the weekends in October 2023 had less than the required staff per resident ratio. The nursing schedules from August 2023 through October 2023 were reviewed and revealed the facility failed to have consistent RN coverage for the weekends. The facility failed to have RN Coverage: Five of eight opportunities in August 2023 Eight of nine opportunities in September 2023 Four out of seven opportunities in October 2023. On 11/16/23 at 10:49 a.m., the administrator and DON both reported the facility had one RN who worked one weekend a month. On 11/27/23 at 2:43 p.m., the DON reviewed the schedules and stated there had not been an RN who had worked on all the weekend shifts.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper storage of dry goods. The administrator reported 55 residents received services from the kitchen. Findings: O...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper storage of dry goods. The administrator reported 55 residents received services from the kitchen. Findings: On 11/16/23 at 11:00 a.m., a kitchen tour was conducted. On 11/16/23 at 12:21 p.m., a 50 lb. bag of oats was observed sitting on the floor in dry storage room. Dietary Aide #1 reported the oats had been delivered to the facility last Thursday. They reported the oats were stored on the floor because all of our storage buckets were full. On 11/28/23 at 11:03 a.m., the dietary supervisor reported it was the facilities policy to not store food on the floor. They could not locate the food storage policy, but stated they would store it on a rack off of the floor, if the buckets were not available.
Sept 2022 6 deficiencies 3 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

On 09/28/22, an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to implement their abuse policy by ensuring a thorough investigation was conducted, to inclu...

Read full inspector narrative →
On 09/28/22, an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to implement their abuse policy by ensuring a thorough investigation was conducted, to include timely reporting, of an allegation of sexual abuse of a cognitively impaired resident. A progress note, dated 08/12/22, documented resident #7 reported to LPN #1 that she had been sexually abused by LPN #3. LPN #1 reported the allegation of sexual abuse to Administration and the DON at that time. LPN #1 was told the allegation would be investigated. Administration stated they did not report the sexual abuse allegation to state agencies, or conduct an investigation with other residents and staff, because LPN #3 was no longer working in the facility at the time the allegation was reported. Administration made a decision to move the resident from the current room to a private room on a hall without male staff and male residents. LPN #3 no longer worked in the facility but had continued to work for a sister facility. The facility failed to ensure the safety of resident #7, and all other residents, by not following their abuse policy for an allegation of sexual abuse. On 09/28/22 at 5:41 p.m., the Oklahoma State Department of Health was notified and verified the existence of the IJ situation. On 09/28/22 at 6:05 p.m., the Administrator and the corporate RN were notified of the IJ situation. On 09/29/22 at 11:55 a.m., an acceptable Plan of Removal was provided by the Administrator and the corporate RN. It documented the following: Plan of removal 09/28/22 1. The Administrator and Director of Nursing have been in-serviced on the abuse policy and investigation an allegation of sexual abuse as of 09/28/22 at 9:00 a.m. 2. All staff will be in-serviced on abuse policy. 3. All staff on duty and available have been in-serviced as of 09/28/22 at 5:00 p.m. 4. All other staff not on duty will be in-serviced prior to returning to work. 5. An investigation was initiated on 09/27/22 when incident was reported to corporate staff. 6. An initial state report was completed and submitted as well as notification to APS and local law enforcement, board of nursing, OSDH, family and physician on 09/27/22 at 6:40 p.m. 7. A PIP plan has been developed to audit all progress notes during stand up meeting to ensure that any and all incidents or unusual occurrence are immediately reported and investigated. 8. The nurse the allegation was made against had resigned on 07/24/22 and has not worked at this facility since. Said employee is currently working for a sister facility and has been placed on suspension once the corporate staff were made aware of the allegation and will remain suspended until investigation is complete. 9. The facility will interview all staff and alert and oriented residents by 11:00 a.m. on 09/29/22, and has interviewed a total of 6 staff members and 6 residents on 09/28/22 to determine if any forms of abuse are occurring in the facility. All staff and residents interviewed have denied any abuse or neglect at this time occurring in the facility. 10. Investigation is currently ongoing and will be completed within the timeline per state and federal regulation included in our policy. On 09/29/22, interviews were conducted with facility staff regarding education and in-service training pertaining to the immediate jeopardy plan of removal. Staff reported they had been in-serviced and were able to verbalize understanding of the information and training provided. The IJ was lifted, effective 09/29/22 at 2:57 p.m., when all elements of the plan of removal had been implemented. The deficient practice remained at a isolated level of no actual harm with a potential for more than minimal harm. Based on observations, record review, and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure the abuse policy was implemented for one (#7) of six residents reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to implement their abuse policy by ensuring a thorough investigation was conducted, to include timely reporting, of an allegation of sexual abuse of a cognitively impaired resident. The administrative assistant reported nine allegations of abuse were reported in the last year. The Administrator reported 42 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility's Abuse and Neglect policy, dated 08/12/22, read in parts, .It is the policy of this facility to maintain an abuse free environment .The facility has developed and implements policies and procedures regarding abuse that include seven components including screening, training, prevention, identification, investigation, protection and reporting/response .Investigation: Any allegation of abuse will be investigated by the Administrator and the DON. The Administrator and the DON will, as a minimum: Review the resident medical record looking for events leading up to the incident .Interview the person(s) reporting the incident .Interview any witnesses to the incident .Interview the resident (if cognitive ability permits) .Interview staff members (on all shifts) who had contact with the resident during the period of the alleged incident if necessary .Interview the resident's roommate, family members, and visitors as able and necessary .Interview other residents to whom the accursed employee provides care or services .Review all events leading up to the incident .Residents who have been alleged to have been abused will be protected from harm during the investigation .Employees of this facility who have been accused of resident abuse will be suspended from duty until the investigation has been completed .Protection: Residents who have been alleged to have been abused will be protected from harm during the investigation. Employees of this facility who have been accused of resident abuse will be suspended from duty. This action will remain in effect until the investigation has been completed .Reporting: All incidents and allegations involving abuse is required to be reported within 2 hours .The Administrator will notify the Oklahoma State Department of Health and AP'S by faxing the Incident Report Form. Resident #7 had diagnoses which included dementia, Bipolar disorder, mood disturbance, anxiety, and Schizophrenia. A Care Plan, dated 04/28/22, read in parts .The resident has a behavior problem .On 04/28/22 resident extremely upset, using foul language, making derogatory remarks about the nurse, stating she was raped in the past and that is why she can not sleep at night, and declining her medications .Administer medications as ordered .Intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others .Minimize potential for the resident's disruptive behaviors, by offering tasks which divert attention .Monitor behavior episodes and attempt to determine underlying cause. A Quarterly Assessment, dated 06/29/22, documented the resident's cognition was impaired and required extensive assistance with most ADLs. A Nurse Note, dated 08/12/22 at 9:44 a.m., documented, Reported by patient that nurse assaulted her rectally and now she is pregnant. She is requesting to see a specialist to prove that it happened. She continues to say male worker assaulted her. Resident then reported same information to CNA. At this time above information reported to administration and DON. Decision was made to move resident from her current room to private room on hall without male staff and patients. On 09/27/22 at 4:00 p.m., the corporate RN reported no incident report had been completed for resident #7 related to sexual abuse. On 09/28/22 at 11:30 a.m., the Administrator reported an incident report had not been initiated related to the sexual abuse allegation for resident #7 on 08/12/22. The Administrator stated the incident was not reported or investigated due to the alleged employee no longer working at the facility when the allegation was made. The Administrator reported the resident had been sick with a UTI and had been displaying many verbal and physical behaviors at the time the allegation was made. On 09/28/22 at 2:38 p.m., LPN #1 was interviewed and reported on 08/12/22, resident #7 had told her that LPN #3 had raped her. LPN #1 reported this was the first time sexual abuse had been reported to her from any resident. LPN #1 reported the resident did not tell her when the incident occurred but she knew the named employee, LPN #3, had not worked in the facility since the end of July 2022. The LPN stated she reported the allegation to the Administrator and the administrative assistant and they told her they would investigate it. The LPN reported an incident report should have been done when the allegation was made to her by the resident. On 09/28/22 at 2:45 p.m., the administrative assistant was interviewed and reported the sexual abuse allegation, reported by the resident on 08/12/22, was discussed with the Administrator and a decision was made not to investigate the allegation. The administrative assistant stated they were under the impression the incident had happened the previous night, the alleged nurse was no longer employed at the facility, and had not worked since July 2022. The administrative assistant reported the decision was made to move the resident to another hall with no male residents or male staff. The administrative assistant reported they received verbal report from LPN #1 of the sexual abuse allegation, and no other residents or staff were interviewed at the time of the allegation.
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

On 09/28/22, an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to ensure an allegation of sexual abuse was reported immediately after the allegation was re...

Read full inspector narrative →
On 09/28/22, an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to ensure an allegation of sexual abuse was reported immediately after the allegation was reported to the Administrator. A progress note, dated 08/12/22, documented resident #7 reported to LPN #1 that she had been sexually abused by LPN #3. LPN #1 reported the allegation of sexual abuse to Administration and the DON at that time. LPN #1 was told the allegation would be investigated. Administration stated they did not report the sexual abuse allegation to state agencies, or conduct an investigation with other residents and staff, because LPN #3 was no longer working in the facility at the time the allegation was reported. Administration made a decision to move the resident from the current room to a private room on a hall without male staff and male residents. LPN #3 no longer worked in the facility but had continued to work for a sister facility. The facility failed to ensure timely reporting of an abuse allegation to maintain the safety of resident #7 and all other residents in the facility. On 09/28/22 at 5:41 p.m., the Oklahoma State Department of Health was notified and verified the existence of the IJ situation. On 09/28/22 at 6:05 p.m., the Administrator and the corporate RN were notified of the IJ situation. On 09/29/22 at 11:55 a.m., an acceptable Plan of Removal was provided by the Administrator and the corporate RN. It documented the following: Plan of removal 09/28/22 1. The Administrator and Director of Nursing have been in-serviced on the abuse policy and investigation an allegation of sexual abuse as of 09/28/22 at 9:00 a.m. 2. All staff will be in-serviced on abuse policy. 3. All staff on duty and available have been in-serviced as of 09/28/22 at 5:00 p.m. 4. All other staff not on duty will be in-serviced prior to returning to work. 5. An investigation was initiated on 09/27/22 when incident was reported to corporate staff. 6. An initial state report was completed and submitted as well as notification to APS and local law enforcement, board of nursing, OSDH, family and physician on 09/27/22 at 6:40 p.m. 7. A PIP plan has been developed to audit all progress notes during stand up meeting to ensure that any and all incidents or unusual occurrence are immediately reported and investigated. 8. The nurse the allegation was made against had resigned on 07/24/22 and has not worked at this facility since. Said employee is currently working for a sister facility and has been placed on suspension once the corporate staff were made aware of the allegation and will remain suspended until investigation is complete. 9. The facility will interview all staff and alert and oriented residents by 11:00 a.m. on 09/29/22, and has interviewed a total of 6 staff members and 6 residents on 09/28/22 to determine if any forms of abuse are occurring in the facility. All staff and residents interviewed have denied any abuse or neglect at this time occurring in the facility. 10. Investigation is currently ongoing and will be completed within the timeline per state and federal regulation included in our policy. On 09/29/22, interviews were conducted with facility staff regarding education and in-service training pertaining to the immediate jeopardy plan of removal. Staff reported they had been in-serviced and were able to verbalize understanding of the information and training provided. The IJ was lifted, effective 09/29/22 at 2:57 p.m., when all elements of the plan of removal had been implemented. The deficient practice remained at a isolated level of no actual harm with a potential for more than minimal harm. Based on observations, record review, and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure an allegation of sexual abuse was reported immediately to the state agency for one (#7) of six residents reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to ensure the safety of all residents in the facility by not reporting an abuse allegation in a timely manner. The administrative assistant reported nine allegations of abuse were reported in the last year. The Administrator reported 42 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility Abuse and Neglect policy, dated 08/12/22, read in parts, .It is the policy of this facility to maintain an abuse free environment .The facility has developed and implements policies and procedures regarding abuse that include seven components including screening, training, prevention, identification, investigation, protection and reporting/response .Reporting: All incidents and allegations involving abuse is required to be reported within 2 hours .The Administrator will notify the Oklahoma State Department of Health and AP'S by faxing the Incident Report Form. Resident #7 had diagnoses which included dementia, Bipolar disorder, mood disturbance, anxiety, and Schizophrenia. A Care Plan, dated 04/28/22, read in parts .The resident has a behavior problem .On 04/28/22 resident extremely upset, using foul language, making derogatory remarks about the nurse, stating she was raped in the past and that is why she can not sleep at night, and declining her medications .Administer medications as ordered .Intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others .Minimize potential for the resident's disruptive behaviors, by offering tasks which divert attention .Monitor behavior episodes and attempt to determine underlying cause. A Quarterly Assessment, dated 06/29/22, documented the resident's cognition was impaired and required extensive assistance with most ADLs. A Nurse Note, dated 08/12/22 at 9:44 a.m., documented, Reported by patient that nurse assaulted her rectally and now she is pregnant. She is requesting to see a specialist to prove that it happened. She continues to say male worker assaulted her. Resident then reported same information to CNA. At this time above information reported to administration and DON. Decision was made to move resident from her current room to private room on hall without male staff and patients. On 09/27/22 at 4:00 p.m., the corporate RN reported no incident report had been completed for resident #7 related to sexual abuse. On 09/28/22 at 11:30 a.m., the Administrator reported an incident report had not been initiated related to the sexual abuse allegation for resident #7 on 08/12/22. The Administrator stated the incident was not reported or investigated due to the alleged employee no longer working at the facility when the allegation was made. The Administrator reported the resident had been sick with a UTI and had been displaying many verbal and physical behaviors at the time the allegation was made. On 09/28/22 at 2:38 p.m., LPN #1 was interviewed and reported on 08/12/22, resident #7 had told her that LPN #3 had raped her. LPN #1 reported this was the first time sexual abuse had been reported to her from any resident. LPN #1 reported the resident did not tell her when the incident occurred but she knew the named employee, LPN #3, had not worked in the facility since the end of July 2022. The LPN stated she reported the allegation to the Administrator and the administrative assistant and they told her they would investigate it. The LPN reported an incident report should have been done when the allegation was made to her by the resident. On 09/28/22 at 2:45 p.m., the administrative assistant was interviewed and reported the sexual abuse allegation, reported by the resident on 08/12/22, was discussed with the Administrator and a decision was made not to investigate the allegation. The administrative assistant stated they were under the impression the incident had happened the previous night, the alleged nurse was no longer employed at the facility, and had not worked since July 2022. The administrative assistant reported the decision was made to move the resident to another hall with no male residents or male staff. The administrative assistant reported they received verbal report from LPN #1 of the sexual abuse allegation, and no other residents or staff were interviewed at the time of the allegation.
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

On 09/28/22, an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to ensure a thorough investigation was conducted for an allegation of sexual abuse to a cogn...

Read full inspector narrative →
On 09/28/22, an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to ensure a thorough investigation was conducted for an allegation of sexual abuse to a cognitively impaired resident. A progress note, dated 08/12/22, documented resident #7 reported to LPN #1 that she had been sexually abused by LPN #3. LPN #1 reported the allegation of sexual abuse to Administration and the DON at that time. LPN #1 was told the allegation would be investigated. Administration stated they did not report the sexual abuse allegation to state agencies, or conduct an investigation with other residents and staff, because LPN #3 was no longer working in the facility at the time the allegation was reported. Administration made a decision to move the resident from the current room to a private room on a hall without male staff and male residents. LPN #3 no longer worked in the facility but had continued to work for a sister facility. The facility failed to ensure the safety of resident #7, and all other residents, by not conducting a thorough investigation for an allegation of sexual abuse. The facility failed to ensure the risk of sexual abuse to resident #7, and other residents, did not remain. On 09/28/22 at 5:41 p.m., the Oklahoma State Department of Health was notified and verified the existence of the IJ situation. On 09/28/22 at 6:05 p.m., the Administrator and the corporate RN were notified of the IJ situation. On 09/29/22 at 11:55 a.m., an acceptable Plan of Removal was provided by the Administrator and the corporate RN. It documented the following: Plan of removal 09/28/22 1. The Administrator and Director of Nursing have been in-serviced on the abuse policy and investigation an allegation of sexual abuse as of 09/28/22 at 9:00 a.m. 2. All staff will be in-serviced on abuse policy. 3. All staff on duty and available have been in-serviced as of 09/28/22 at 5:00 p.m. 4. All other staff not on duty will be in-serviced prior to returning to work. 5. An investigation was initiated on 09/27/22 when incident was reported to corporate staff. 6. An initial state report was completed and submitted as well as notification to APS and local law enforcement, board of nursing, OSDH, family and physician on 09/27/22 at 6:40 p.m. 7. A PIP plan has been developed to audit all progress notes during stand up meeting to ensure that any and all incidents or unusual occurrence are immediately reported and investigated. 8. The nurse the allegation was made against had resigned on 07/24/22 and has not worked at this facility since. Said employee is currently working for a sister facility and has been placed on suspension once the corporate staff were made aware of the allegation and will remain suspended until investigation is complete. 9. The facility will interview all staff and alert and oriented residents by 11:00 a.m. on 09/29/22, and has interviewed a total of 6 staff members and 6 residents on 09/28/22 to determine if any forms of abuse are occurring in the facility. All staff and residents interviewed have denied any abuse or neglect at this time occurring in the facility. 10. Investigation is currently ongoing and will be completed within the timeline per state and federal regulation included in our policy. On 09/29/22, interviews were conducted with facility staff regarding education and in-service training pertaining to the immediate jeopardy plan of removal. Staff reported they had been in-serviced and were able to verbalize understanding of the information and training provided. The IJ was lifted, effective 09/29/22 at 2:57 p.m., when all elements of the plan of removal had been implemented. The deficient practice remained at a isolated level of no actual harm with a potential for more than minimal harm. Based on observations, record review, and interviews, it was determined the facility failed to ensure an allegation of sexual abuse was thoroughly investigated for one (#7) of six residents reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to ensure the safety of all residents in the facility. The administrative assistant reported nine allegations of abuse were reported in the last year. The Administrator reported 42 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility's Abuse and Neglect policy, dated 08/12/22, read in parts, .It is the policy of this facility to maintain an abuse free environment .The facility has developed and implements policies and procedures regarding abuse that include seven components including screening, training, prevention, identification, investigation, protection and reporting/response .Investigation: Any allegation of abuse will be investigated by the Administrator and the DON. The Administrator and the DON will, as a minimum: Review the resident medical record looking for events leading up to the incident .Interview the person(s) reporting the incident .Interview any witnesses to the incident .Interview the resident (if cognitive ability permits) .Interview staff members (on all shifts) who had contact with the resident during the period of the alleged incident if necessary .Interview the resident's roommate, family members, and visitors as able and necessary .Interview other residents to whom the accursed employee provides care or services .Review all events leading up to the incident .Residents who have been alleged to have been abused will be protected from harm during the investigation .Employees of this facility who have been accused of resident abuse will be suspended from duty until the investigation has been completed .Protection: Residents who have been alleged to have been abused will be protected from harm during the investigation. Employees of this facility who have been accused of resident abuse will be suspended from duty. This action will remain in effect until the investigation has been completed .Reporting: All incidents and allegations involving abuse is required to be reported within 2 hours .The Administrator will notify the Oklahoma State Department of Health and AP'S by faxing the Incident Report Form. Resident #7 had diagnoses which included dementia, Bipolar disorder, mood disturbance, anxiety, and Schizophrenia. A Care Plan, dated 04/28/22, read in parts .The resident has a behavior problem .On 04/28/22 resident extremely upset, using foul language, making derogatory remarks about the nurse, stating she was raped in the past and that is why she can not sleep at night, and declining her medications .Administer medications as ordered .Intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others .Minimize potential for the resident's disruptive behaviors, by offering tasks which divert attention .Monitor behavior episodes and attempt to determine underlying cause. A Quarterly Assessment, dated 06/29/22, documented the resident's cognition was impaired and required extensive assistance with most ADLs. A Nurse Note, dated 08/12/22 at 9:44 a.m., documented, Reported by patient that nurse assaulted her rectally and now she is pregnant. She is requesting to see a specialist to prove that it happened. She continues to say male worker assaulted her. Resident then reported same information to CNA. At this time above information reported to administration and DON. Decision was made to move resident from her current room to private room on hall without male staff and patients. On 09/27/22 at 4:00 p.m., the corporate RN reported no incident report had been completed for resident #7 related to sexual abuse. On 09/28/22 at 11:30 a.m., the Administrator reported an incident report had not been initiated related to the sexual abuse allegation for resident #7 on 08/12/22. The Administrator stated the incident was not reported or investigated due to the alleged employee no longer working at the facility when the allegation was made. The Administrator reported the resident had been sick with a UTI and had been displaying many verbal and physical behaviors at the time the allegation was made. On 09/28/22 at 2:38 p.m., LPN #1 was interviewed and reported on 08/12/22, resident #7 had told her that LPN #3 had raped her. LPN #1 reported this was the first time sexual abuse had been reported to her from any resident. LPN #1 reported the resident did not tell her when the incident occurred but she knew the named employee, LPN #3, had not worked in the facility since the end of July 2022. The LPN stated she reported the allegation to the Administrator and the administrative assistant and they told her they would investigate it. The LPN reported an incident report should have been done when the allegation was made to her by the resident. On 09/28/22 at 2:45 p.m., the administrative assistant was interviewed and reported the sexual abuse allegation, reported by the resident on 08/12/22, was discussed with the Administrator and a decision was made not to investigate the allegation. The administrative assistant stated they were under the impression the incident had happened the previous night, the alleged nurse was no longer employed at the facility, and had not worked since July 2022. The administrative assistant reported the decision was made to move the resident to another hall with no male residents or male staff. The administrative assistant reported they received verbal report from LPN #1 of the sexual abuse allegation, and no other residents or staff were interviewed at the time of the allegation.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for one (#38) of 17 residents whose care plans were reviewed. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents, dated 09/26/22, documented 42 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Resident #38 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included right lung squamous cell carcinoma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The resident's Physician Orders, dated 09/07/22, did not include an order for oxygen. The Care Plan, dated 09/08/22, did not include the resident's oxygen. An admission Assessment, dated 09/14/22, documented cognition intact and oxygen therapy while in the facility. A Nurse Note, dated 09/12/22 at 8:09 a.m., read in part, .Continues to wear O2 at 2-3 liters nasal cannula. A Nurse Note, dated 09/16/22 at 1:20 p.m., read in parts .Patient stated he is leaving today and will be back later this evening .Left with full oxygen tank and instructed not to use while smoking On 09/27/22 at 10:16 a.m., resident #38 was observed to have an oxygen mask, oxygen tubing and oxygen concentrator present in his room. The resident reported using oxygen in the mornings and at night as needed. On 09/29/22 at 1:54 p.m., LPN#1 reported the resident should have had a physician's order for the oxygen. The LPN stated the resident used oxygen as needed and they failed to get an order for oxygen when he was admitted . The LPN reported making a call to the resident's physician on 09/28/22 to obtain an order for oxygen. The LPN reported the use of oxygen was not included on the resident's care plan. On 09/29/22 3:42 p.m., the corporate MDS manager reported oxygen therapy should have been included on the resident's care plan.
CONCERN (D)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for one (#38) of three res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to obtain a physician's order for one (#38) of three residents reviewed for oxygen therapy. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents, dated 09/26/22, documented six residents received respiratory treatment. Findings: The facility's Oxygen Administration policy, revised 10/2010, read in parts, .Verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure .Review the physician's orders or facility protocol for oxygen administration. Resident #38 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included right lung squamous cell carcinoma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The resident's Physician Orders, dated 09/07/22, did not include an order for oxygen. The Care Plan, dated 09/08/22, did not include the resident's oxygen. An admission Assessment, dated 09/14/22, documented the resident's cognition was intact and used oxygen therapy while in the facility. A Nurse Note, dated 09/12/22 at 8:09 a.m., read in part, .Continues to wear O2 at 2-3 liters nasal canula. A Nurse Note, dated 09/16/22 at 1:20 p.m., read in parts, .Patient stated he is leaving today and will be back later this evening .Left with full oxygen tank and instructed not to use while smoking. On 09/27/22 at 10:16 a.m., resident #38 was observed to have an oxygen mask, oxygen tubing and oxygen concentrator present in his room. The resident reported using oxygen in the mornings and at night as needed. A Nurse Note, dated 09/28/22 at 9:44 p.m., read in parts, .Notified pcp of patient need for supplemental oxygen PRN .New order received for O2 at 3 liters prn shortness of breath .Monitor saturation every shift and report if less than 94% .New order placed and TAR updated. On 09/29/22 at 1:54 p.m., LPN#1 reported the resident should have had a physician's order for oxygen. The LPN stated the resident used oxygen as needed and they failed to get an order for oxygen when he was admitted . The LPN reported making a call to the resident's physician on 09/28/22 to obtain an order for oxygen.
CONCERN (E)

Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure finger stick blood sugar checks and insulin administration w...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure finger stick blood sugar checks and insulin administration was performed per the physician orders for three (#4, 20 and #40) of nine residents with orders for insulin medication. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents documented 42 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A facility policy and procedure for glucose monitoring and insulin administration read in part .documentation: 1) the resident's blood glucose result .2) the dose and concentration of the insulin injection . 1. Resident (Res) #4 was admitted with diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus. The resident's Quarterly Assessment, dated 6/28/22, documented the resident was moderately impaired with cognition and received injections for a diagnosis of type two diabetes mellitus. The resident's Care Plan, dated 06/28/22, documented the resident had a diagnosis for diabetes mellitus. A Physician Order, dated Sept. 2022, documented: Lantus solution 100 unit/ml inject 15 unit subcutaneously at bedtime. Lantus solution 100 unit/ml inject 60 unit subcutaneously in the morning. Humalog solution 100 unit/ml inject as per sliding scale . The Insulin Administration Record for Res #4 was left blank for a total of 23 opportunities for FSBS and insulin injections for the months of August and September 2022. 2. Resident #20 was admitted with diagnoses which included type two diabetes mellitus. The resident's admission Assessment, dated 07/26/22, documented the resident was severely impaired of cognition and received four injections in the past seven day look back period. The resident's Care Plan, dated 08/11/22, documented to give insulin Levemir 100 unit/ml, 10uts SQ BID for diabetes mellitus. A Physician Order, dated [DATE], documented to give Levemir flextouch Sol Pen-injector 100 unit/ml give 10 units SQ BID for DM. An Insulin Flowsheet/Finger-stick form, for 08/01/22 - 08/31/22, and 09/01/22 - 09/29/22, documented several blanks where there was no documentation to indicate if the resident refused the Levemir or if a blood sugar was not obtained. 3. Resident #40 was admitted with diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus. The resident's Annual Assessment, dated 08/29/22, documented the resident's cognition was intact and received seven injections in the 7 day look back period. The resident's Care Plan, dated 08/29/22, documented the resident received insulin medication routinely .had declined insulin .refused sliding scale .indicated to document refusals. A Physician Order, dated [DATE], documented to give: Lantus solostar pen-injector 100 unit/ml inject 15 ml at bedtime Lantus solostar pen-injector 15 units in the morning Novolog solution 100 unit/ml inject per SS A review for August and September insulin flowsheet/blood sugar record, documented a total of 20 blanks with no refusals noted or blood sugar or insulin injections given. On 09/29/22 at 9:01 a.m. LPN #2 reported the process for administering insulin and obtaining finger stick blood sugar levels. She stated if the record was left blank it would mean the nurse before her did not do it or she forgot to write it down. On 09/29/22 at 9:40 a.m. RN #1 reviewed the clinical records for August and September and reported the blanks should have been reported to her. The RN stated the blanks would indicate the blood sugar check and insulin administration had not been done per the physician orders.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Oklahoma facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 15 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (14/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
  • • 64% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: This facility has 3 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Ada's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns ADA CARE CENTER an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Oklahoma, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Ada Staffed?

CMS rates ADA CARE CENTER's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 64%, which is 18 percentage points above the Oklahoma average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 60%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Ada?

State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at ADA CARE CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 12 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Ada?

ADA CARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by IHS MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 85 certified beds and approximately 46 residents (about 54% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in ADA, Oklahoma.

How Does Ada Compare to Other Oklahoma Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma, ADA CARE CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (64%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Ada?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Ada Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, ADA CARE CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Ada Stick Around?

Staff turnover at ADA CARE CENTER is high. At 64%, the facility is 18 percentage points above the Oklahoma average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 60%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Ada Ever Fined?

ADA CARE CENTER has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Ada on Any Federal Watch List?

ADA CARE CENTER is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.