ENGLISH VILLAGE SKILLED NURSING AND THERAPY

1515 CANTERBURY BLVD, ALTUS, OK 73521 (580) 477-1133
For profit - Corporation 128 Beds BRIDGES HEALTH Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
73/100
#52 of 282 in OK
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

English Village Skilled Nursing and Therapy in Altus, Oklahoma, has a Trust Grade of B, which means it is a good choice for care, solidly positioned in the middle of the pack. It ranks #52 out of 282 nursing homes in Oklahoma, placing it in the top half, and is the best option in Jackson County. However, it is important to note that the facility's trend is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 2 to 4 from 2023 to 2025. While staffing is a relative strength with a turnover rate of 53%, which is below the state average, the facility has faced some serious concerns, including a failure to manage a resident's pain effectively that resulted in a hospital visit and delays in submitting resident assessments to federal guidelines. Additionally, there was a missed referral for a resident diagnosed with a mental illness, indicating areas where improvements are needed.

Trust Score
B
73/100
In Oklahoma
#52/282
Top 18%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
53% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
○ Average
$7,443 in fines. Higher than 50% of Oklahoma facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 22 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Oklahoma. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
○ Average
6 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2023: 2 issues
2025: 4 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 53%

Near Oklahoma avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $7,443

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: BRIDGES HEALTH

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 6 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Apr 2025 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to refer a resident with newly diagnosed mental illness to the OHCA for level II PASARR evaluation for 1 (#23) of 1 sampled resident reviewed ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to refer a resident with newly diagnosed mental illness to the OHCA for level II PASARR evaluation for 1 (#23) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for PASARR. The administrator reported 62 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A policy titled Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), dated 03/01/06, read in part, Status change after admission .Significant change Level 1 screenings will be completed for residents who receive a mental diagnosis after admission or residents who begin to receive medications that could be used to treat mental illness after admission .The D.O.N. or other designee must complete a significant change Level 1 screening at the time of the new diagnosis or medication order and place a call to the LOCEU [Level of Care Evaluation Unit] Unit in order to verify whether a Level 2 screening is required at that time. Resident #23 had diagnoses which included bipolar disorder and schizoaffective disorder. A PASARR form, dated 02/03/15, showed Resident #23 had a diagnosis of serious mental illness of which included a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Resident #23's clinical record showed the resident received a new diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder on 01/13/17. There was no evidence the resident was re-evaluated for a PASARR Level II. A MDS annual assessment, dated 02/06/25, showed Resident #23 was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15. The assessment showed the resident received antipsychotic and antidepressant medications. On 04/02/25 at 1:45 p.m., the administrator reported they were trying to find out if the OHCA was called, or how it was handled, when Resident #23 received the new diagnosis. The administrator reported the facility was purchased by a new owner so it was difficult to know what the previous process was. On 04/02/25 at 4:07 p.m., the administrator reported they spoke with their corporate office to see if there was any documentation related to a PASARR II for Resident #23. The administrator stated they were unable to find documentation to show OHCA was contacted at the time of the resident's new diagnosis.
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

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to implement a plan of care with interventions for 1 (#110) of 1 resident reviewed for a dialysis care plan. The administrator ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to implement a plan of care with interventions for 1 (#110) of 1 resident reviewed for a dialysis care plan. The administrator reported two residents received dialysis treatments. Findings: On 04/02/25 at 11:37 a.m., Resident #110 was observed to return from dialysis. The transportation staff reported they would let the charge nurse know the resident was back and would provide the nurse with the form from dialysis. Resident #110 had diagnoses which included dependence on renal dialysis and end stage renal disease. Resident #110's care plan, dated 04/01/25, showed the resident was admitted to skilled services on 03/19/25 for acute kidney failure. The care plan contained no documentation related to dialysis treatments, care before or after dialysis treatments, or care of the resident's port. On 04/02/25 at 11:40 a.m., LPN #2 reported they would enter the information into the computer from the dialysis form. LPN #2 reported the resident had a port to the right upper chest. On 04/02/25 at 4:24 p.m., LPN #4 reported they followed the resident assessment instrument for policy regarding care plans. LPN #4 reported the facility did not have a care plan policy.
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 ensure a care plan was accurate for 1 (#110) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for dialysis. The administrator reported two res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was accurate for 1 (#110) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for dialysis. The administrator reported two residents received dialysis treatments. Findings: On 04/02/25 at 11:37 a.m., Resident #110 was observed to return from dialysis. The transportation staff reported they would let the charge nurse know the resident was back and would provide the nurse with the form from dialysis. Resident #110 had diagnoses which included dependence on renal dialysis and end stage renal disease. A care plan for Resident #110, dated 04/02/25, showed: a. resident needed hemodialysis related to renal failure, b. resident would have no signs/symptoms of complications from dialysis through the review date, c. monitor AVF for signs symptoms trauma and/or infection as ordered by physician, d. no blood pressure, labs or lifting in arm with AVF/AVG as ordered by physician, e. remove AVF dressing four hours after dialysis treatment as ordered by physician, f. schedule visits to the dialysis center and coordinate care accordingly, g. encourage the resident to go for the scheduled dialysis appointments. Resident receives dialysis Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, h. monitor/document/report to physician as needed any signs or symptoms of infection to access site: redness, swelling, warmth or drainage, and i. obtain vital signs and weight per protocol. Report significant changes in pulse, respirations and blood pressure immediately. On 04/03/25 at 10:12 a.m., the DON reported Resident #110 had a port and had just started dialysis treatments. The DON reported the resident would have an AVF placed if they continued dialysis treatments, but currently only had a port to the left chest. On 04/03/25 at 10:19 a.m., the MDS coordinator reported they had entered the information about an AVF on Resident #110's care plan. The MDS coordinator reported the information was not accurate and they had entered standard dialysis orders instead of the person-centered information related to the resident's port.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to implement EBP for 1 (#33) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for EBP. The quality control manager reported 18 residents required ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to implement EBP for 1 (#33) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for EBP. The quality control manager reported 18 residents required EBP. Findings: On 04/01/25 at 12:09 p.m., Resident #33 was observed to have a catheter flowing to gravity connected to the side of the bed. There was no signage observed to indicate the resident required EBP. An Infection Control and Isolation Policy revised date 03/28/24, read in part, EBPs are indicated with any of the following .Wounds and/or indwelling medical devices even if the resident is not known to be infected or colonized with an MDRO [multi drug resistant organism] . Examples of high-contact resident care activities requiring gown and glove use for Enhanced Barrier Precautions include .Device care or use: central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube, tracheostomy/ventilator. Resident #33 had diagnosis which included obstructive and reflux uropathy. Resident #33's quarterly assessment, dated 02/21/25, showed the resident's cognition was intact with a BIMS score of 15. Resident #33's care plan for an indwelling catheter, dated 03/03/25, showed: a. change the indwelling catheter bag twice monthly on the 1st and 15th and as needed, b. intake and output every shift for the indwelling catheter, and c. position catheter bag and tubing below the level of the bladder and away from entrance room door. A physician order for Resident #33, dated 04/02/25, showed EBP would be implemented related to the indwelling catheter. On 04/02/25 at 8:15 a.m., certified medication aide #2 reported Resident #33 did not have EBP in place. On 04/02/25 at 1:49 p.m., Resident #33 reported staff did not use a gown the previous day when they emptied their catheter. Resident #33 reported the nurse told them they would be using one today. On 04/02/25 at 1:58 p.m., LPN #3 reported they requested the order for EBP today. LPN #3 reported the resident's indwelling catheter was placed on 03/03/25. LPN #3 reported if a resident had an indwelling catheter they should have EBP in place.
Dec 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to electronically submit MDS assessments to CMS within the required timeframe after completion for four (#1, 5, 18, and #23) of four residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to electronically submit MDS assessments to CMS within the required timeframe after completion for four (#1, 5, 18, and #23) of four residents reviewed for resident assessments. The DON reported 62 residents resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #1's quarterly assessment, dated 10/22/23, was documented as transmitted. The final validation report documented the assessment was submitted to CMS on 12/08/23. 2. Resident #5's annual assessment, dated 10/20/23, was documented as transmitted. The final validation report documented the assessment was submitted to CMS on 12/08/23. 3. Resident #18's quarterly assessment, dated 10/20/23, was documented as transmitted. The final validation report documented the assessment was submitted to CMS on 12/08/23. 4. Resident #23's quarterly assessment, dated 10/12/23, was documented as transmitted. The assessment documented as rejected by CMS on 10/30/23. The final validation report documented the assessment was submitted to CMS on 12/08/23. On 12/14/23 at 3:00 p.m., the Regional MDS Consultant reported the cooperate office submitted the assessments to CMS. The Regional MDS Consultant reported that the EMR used by the facility was not transmitting properly to CMS, which resulted in assessments being rejected. The Regional MDS Consultant reported the cooperate office stopped transmitting assessments to CMS until the error was fixed and they had time to go back over all assessments. On 12/18/23 at 3:45 p.m., the MDS Coordinator confirmed the identified resident assessments were not completed and submitted with 14 days of completion as required. The MDS Coordinator reported that the facility did not have an MDS transmission/submission policy.
Jul 2023 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to have an effective method for ordering and obtaining medications in a timely manner, to provide adequate pain management for a resident, whi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to have an effective method for ordering and obtaining medications in a timely manner, to provide adequate pain management for a resident, which resulted in a hospital visit for one (#1) of three sampled residents reviewed for pain. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents, dated 07/20/23, documented 64 residents resided in the facility and 36 residents were on a pain management program. Findings: A facility policy, Nursing Protocols - Pain, revised 09/10/07, documented in part, .Believe the resident's report of pain. This should be the primary source of assessment .pain is subjective .the function of non-drug interventions is usually to augment, not replace, medications .non-pharmacologic interventions are intended to supplement, not substitute pharmacologic interventions . Res #1 had diagnoses which included kyphosis, arthropathy, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, and anxiety. An annual MDS assessment, dated 04/22/23, documented the resident was cognitively intact. The assessment documented the resident was independent with most activities of daily living. The assessment documented the resident was on scheduled pain medication, and the worst level of pain in the previous five days had been an 8 on a scale of 1-10. A care plan, dated 05/11/23, documented the resident was at risk for pain related to osteoarthritis, arthropathy, and kyphosis to the thoracolumbar region. The care plan documented to administer pain medications as ordered, and to anticipate the resident's need for pain relief and respond immediately to any complaint of pain. An incident report, dated 07/15/23 at 6:30 p.m., documented in part, .It was noted that resident's routine pain medication did not come in from pharmacy as expected. Medication was ordered on 07/12/23 .MD made aware and sent script to the pharmacy emergent refill .stated it could be picked up 10 am the next morning .resident offered other pain interventions such as volteren gel, Flexeril and Tylenol .resident declined .sent to the ER for pain management . A progress note, dated 07/15/23 at 7:41 p.m., documented the resident requested to be sent to the emergency room for pain treatment. The note documented the resident was offered PRN Flexeril and Tylenol, but the resident and family declined PRN medications. The note documented the physician was notified and orders received to send the resident to the emergency room for evaluation and treatment per the resident and family request. An ER visit record, dated 07/15/23, documented the resident was seen for acute leg pain and acute exacerbation of congestive heart failure. A progress note, dated 07/16/23 at 3:58 a.m., documented the resident returned from the ER accompanied by family. The note documented new orders were received for a 1.5 liter fluid restriction daily, continue home medications and Lasix, and follow-up in two days with the physician. The July 2023 MAR, documented the resident had an order for Percocet 5-325 mg, one tablet every six hours for pain. The MAR documented the resident missed the 6:00 p.m. dose on 07/15/23, and was out of the facility for the 12:00 a.m. dose on 07/16/23, and did not receive the 6:00 a.m. dose on 07/16/23. An ER physician's order, dated 07/16/23 at 2:53 a.m., documented the resident would continue home medications and Lasix, would have a fluid restriction of 1.5 liters per day, and documented, make sure she gets pain meds in AM. On 07/20/23 at 10:45 a.m., CMA #1 was interviewed regarding the facility's process for re-ordering medications. The CMA stated she was aware Res #1 had missed a pain medication and thought someone might have forgotten to order it on time. The CMA reported she and other staff were in-serviced to ensure this wouldn't happen again and they had put a new process in place for re-ordering medications. On 07/20/23 at 3:14 p.m., during a phone interview with resident #1's family member, it was reported the resident had called the family member the previous week on Saturday (07/15/23), and stated the facility had ran out of the resident's pain medication and would not be able to get the medication until the next day. The family member reported they drove to the facility in order to take the resident to the emergency room to ensure the resident received pain control. The family member reported the facility did arrange transportation to the emergency room after the family arrived. The resident was no longer present at the facility at the time of survey. The administrator provided documentation of in-services conducted on 07/15/23 through 07/17/23. The in-services included nursing staff and addressed ordering of medications, re-ordering of narcotics, and notifying the charge nurse and physician when there were issues with medication refills. Nurses and CMAs were interviewed and were knowledgeable of the process related to medication refills, ordering, and obtaining medication. The administrator also provided a copy of ongoing compliance rounds, initiated on 07/15/23 at 8:00 p.m. The compliance rounds were conducted by the DON and charge nurses to ensure medication carts were checked for re-orders and notification of hard scripts to the physicians. On 07/20/23 at 4:30 p.m., the DON reported they were aware their process for reordering medications needed to be improved. The DON stated when they ran out of Res #1's pain medication, they immediately in-serviced staff to prevent a recurrence and started compliance rounds to ensure the process was working. The DON stated part of the new process involved working direct with the pharmacy to order and re-order medications electronically. The DON reported the process was in place and would be complete when the facility received scanning equipment which had been ordered.
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

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • 6 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 73/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is English Village Skilled Nursing And Therapy's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns ENGLISH VILLAGE SKILLED NURSING AND THERAPY an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within Oklahoma, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is English Village Skilled Nursing And Therapy Staffed?

CMS rates ENGLISH VILLAGE SKILLED NURSING AND THERAPY's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 53%, compared to the Oklahoma average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at English Village Skilled Nursing And Therapy?

State health inspectors documented 6 deficiencies at ENGLISH VILLAGE SKILLED NURSING AND THERAPY during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 5 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates English Village Skilled Nursing And Therapy?

ENGLISH VILLAGE SKILLED NURSING AND THERAPY 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 BRIDGES HEALTH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 128 certified beds and approximately 58 residents (about 45% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in ALTUS, Oklahoma.

How Does English Village Skilled Nursing And Therapy Compare to Other Oklahoma Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma, ENGLISH VILLAGE SKILLED NURSING AND THERAPY's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (53%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting English Village Skilled Nursing And Therapy?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is English Village Skilled Nursing And Therapy Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, ENGLISH VILLAGE SKILLED NURSING AND THERAPY has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at English Village Skilled Nursing And Therapy Stick Around?

ENGLISH VILLAGE SKILLED NURSING AND THERAPY has a staff turnover rate of 53%, which is 7 percentage points above the Oklahoma average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was English Village Skilled Nursing And Therapy Ever Fined?

ENGLISH VILLAGE SKILLED NURSING AND THERAPY has been fined $7,443 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Oklahoma average of $33,153. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is English Village Skilled Nursing And Therapy on Any Federal Watch List?

ENGLISH VILLAGE SKILLED NURSING AND THERAPY 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.

ENGLISH VILLAGE SKILLED NURSING AND THERAPY

1515 CANTERBURY BLVD, ALTUS, OK 73521 | (580) 477-1133

B
Trust Grade (73/100)
4.0
CMS Rating
6
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • Licensed facility

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025