ELK CROSSING

811 WEST ELK, DUNCAN, OK 73533 (580) 475-0750
For profit - Limited Liability company 120 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
90/100
#8 of 282 in OK
Last Inspection: April 2024

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

Overview

Elk Crossing in Duncan, Oklahoma has received an impressive Trust Grade of A, indicating that it is highly recommended and considered excellent in quality. With a state rank of #8 out of 282 facilities, it is among the top half in Oklahoma, and it ranks #1 out of 5 in Stephens County, suggesting it is the best local option available. The facility's trend is stable, with a consistent number of four issues reported in recent years. Staffing ratings are generally good, with a 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 44%, which is below the state average, indicating that staff tend to stay longer and know the residents well. However, the facility has faced some concerns, including issues with food service sanitation and documentation of vaccination education, which highlight areas needing improvement despite the absence of any fines or serious incidents.

Trust Score
A
90/100
In Oklahoma
#8/282
Top 2%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Holding Steady
2 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
44% turnover. Near Oklahoma's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Oklahoma facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 21 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Oklahoma. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
✓ Good
Only 4 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 2 issues
2024: 2 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (44%)

    4 points below Oklahoma average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 44%

Near Oklahoma avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 4 deficiencies on record

Apr 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident assessments were accurate for one (#59) of 18 sampled residents whose resident assessments were reviewed. The Long Term Car...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident assessments were accurate for one (#59) of 18 sampled residents whose resident assessments were reviewed. The Long Term Care Facility Application for Medicare and Medicaid, dated 04/22/24, documented 83 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #59 had diagnoses which included hyperlipidemia and non-ruptured cerebral aneurysm. A quarterly assessment, dated 04/03/24, documented the resident had received an anticoagulant during the last seven days or since admission/entry or reentry if less than seven days. There was no documentation the resident had received an anticoagulant during the last seven days or since admission/entry or reentry if less than seven days. On 04/23/24 at 2:32 p.m., the DON was made aware the resident's 04/03/24 quarterly assessment documented the resident received an anticoagulant during the last seven days or since admission/entry or reentry if less than seven days. They stated the resident received aspirin and clopidogrel bisulfate. They were coded as anticoagulants instead of antiplatelets.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper food service sanitation and storage requirements were followed. The Long Term Care Facility Application for Medicare and Medic...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper food service sanitation and storage requirements were followed. The Long Term Care Facility Application for Medicare and Medicaid, dated 04/22/24, documented 83 residents resided in the facility. The CDM identified one resident received nutrition and hydration solely through a feeding tube. Findings: On 04/22/24 at 11:15 a.m., a tour of the kitchen was conducted. The following observations were made. a. a oven hood light was burned out and/or not working, b. there was an accumulation of black and brown residue on the floor and the wall in the dish wash area, c. the metal back splash was not secure to the wall in the dish wash area, d. the gasket on the walk in freezer door was split and in bad repair, e. there were two plastic storage bags of ready to eat hot dogs with open dates of April 7th and April 8th in the walk in cooler, and f. there was a plastic storage bag of ready to eat turkey with a discard date of April 20th in the walk in cooler. On 04/22/24 at 11:25 a.m., the CDM was asked what was the date marking policy. They stated the date on the hot dogs was the date they were opened. They stated the the hot dogs were to be held for seven days once opened. They stated the turkey should have been discarded. On 04/22/24 at 11:31 a.m., a tour of the long term care serving and dining area was conducted. The gasket on the Delfield one door reach in cooler was observed split and in bad repair. On 04/22/24 at 11:40 a.m., a tour of the skilled serving and dining area was conducted. The gasket on the ice cream freezer was observed split and in bad repair. On 04/24/24 at 12:22 p.m., the CDM was asked how staff ensure food service areas were kept clean and maintained in good repair. They stated they cleaned daily and maintenance concerns were reported to the maintenance department. They were made aware of the cleaning and maintenance concerns. On 04/24/24 at 12:33 p.m., there was a blanket on the floor around the garbage disposal drain. The CDM stated there were plumbing issues and water flood the floor.
Mar 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

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: a. document the provision of information and education regarding ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to: a. document the provision of information and education regarding the risks, benefits, and potential side effects of the influenza and/or pneumococcal vaccinations, and; b. maintain a signed consent or declination from the resident or resident's representative for four (#17, 47, 53, and #60) of five residents reviewed for vaccinations. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents, dated 03/20/23, documented 66 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility's Vaccination of Residents policy, dated 04/01/13, read in parts, .All residents will be offered vaccines that aid in preventing infectious diseases unless the vaccine is medically contraindicated or the resident has already been vaccinated .Prior to receiving vaccinations, the resident or legal representative will be provided information and education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the vaccinations .Provision of such education shall be documented in the resident's medical record . 1. Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The medical record for resident #17 documented an influenza vaccine was given on 10/13/22. The resident's record did not contain a signed consent, or contain documentation to indicate education was provided to the resident or their representative before administration of the influenza vaccine. 2. Resident #47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The medical record for resident #47 documented no proof the resident or resident's representative had been offered, provided education, and no signed a consent or refusal for the influenza vaccination. The resident's record did not document the influenza vaccine had been given before admission. 3. Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The medical record for resident #53 documented an influenza vaccine was given on 11/02/22. The resident's record did not contain a signed consent or document education was provided to the resident or resident's representative before administration of the influenza vaccine. 4. Resident # 60 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The medical record for resident #60 documented the pneumococcal vaccine was refused. The resident's record did not contain a signed refusal or document education was provided to the resident or resident's representative before refusal of the vaccine. On 03/23/22 at 10:00 a.m., the Administrator reported a nurse documented a vaccine consent or refusal in progress notes of the resident's medical record. The Administrator reported the vaccines administered in the facility were documented in the resident's medical record with the vaccine type, administration location, and the vaccine lot number. The Administrator reported the resident medical records did not contain a signed consent or the education provided. The Administrator reported the facility had an outside pharmacy, or other medical facility, come in to administer vaccines and the facility did not keep the vaccines in the facility. On 03/23/22 at 10:59 a.m., the IP/ADON reported no signed vaccination consents or declinations had been kept in the facility. The IP/ADON reported the pharmacy which provided resident vaccinations supplied a consent form, and the consent form contained education regarding the vaccine for residents or their representative to sign for consent or refusal of the vaccine before administration. The IP/ADON reported a facility nurse rounded with the pharmacy staff to educate and obtain consent for the vaccine, but the facility did not keep a copy of the pharmacy's form for the resident's medical record.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to: a. maintain documentation in the resident's medi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, it was determined the facility failed to: a. maintain documentation in the resident's medical record regarding the education provided to the resident or resident's representative regarding the benefits, risks and potential side effects associated with the COVID-19 vaccine before administration, and; b. maintain documentation of a signed consent or refusal in the resident's medical record for the COVID-19 vaccine for one (#17) of five residents reviewed for vaccinations. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents, dated 03/20/23, documented 66 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The facility's Vaccination of Residents policy, dated 04/01/13, read in parts, .All residents will be offered vaccines that aid in preventing infectious diseases unless the vaccine is medically contraindicated or the resident has already been vaccinated .Prior to receiving vaccinations, the resident or legal representative will be provided information and education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the vaccinations .Provision of such education shall be documented in the resident's medical record . Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The medical record for resident #17 documented a COVID-19 vaccine was administered on 09/09/22. The resident's medical record documented no proof of the education provided to the resident or resident's representative on the benefits, risks, and side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine before administration. The resident's medical record contained no consent signed by the resident or resident's representative for the COVID-19 vaccine before administration of the vaccine. On 03/23/22 at 10:00 a.m., the Administrator reported a nurse documented a vaccine consent or refusal in progress notes of the resident's medical record. The Administrator reported the vaccines administered in the facility were documented in the resident's medical record with the vaccine type, administration location, and the vaccine lot number. The Administrator reported the resident's medical record did not contain a signed consent or the education provided. The Administrator reported the facility had an outside pharmacy, or other medical facility, administer vaccines and the facility did not keep vaccines in the facility. On 03/23/22 at 10:59 a.m., the IP/ADON reported no signed vaccination consents or declinations had been kept in the facility for any residents. The IP/ADON reported the pharmacy which provided resident vaccinations supplied a consent form and the form contained education regarding the vaccine for residents or the resident's representative to sign for consent or refusal of the vaccine before administration. The IP/ADON reported a facility nurse rounded with the pharmacy staff to educate and obtain consent for the vaccine, but the facility did not keep a copy of the pharmacy's form for the resident's medical record.
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
  • • Grade A (90/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Oklahoma.
  • • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Oklahoma facilities.
  • • Only 4 deficiencies on record. Cleaner than most facilities. Minor issues only.
Concerns
  • • No significant concerns identified. This facility shows no red flags across CMS ratings, staff turnover, or federal penalties.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Elk Crossing's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns ELK CROSSING an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Elk Crossing Staffed?

CMS rates ELK CROSSING's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 44%, compared to the Oklahoma average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Elk Crossing?

State health inspectors documented 4 deficiencies at ELK CROSSING during 2023 to 2024. These included: 4 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates Elk Crossing?

ELK CROSSING is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 120 certified beds and approximately 99 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in DUNCAN, Oklahoma.

How Does Elk Crossing Compare to Other Oklahoma Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma, ELK CROSSING's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.7, staff turnover (44%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Elk Crossing?

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 Elk Crossing Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, ELK CROSSING 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 5-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 Elk Crossing Stick Around?

ELK CROSSING has a staff turnover rate of 44%, which is about average for Oklahoma nursing homes (state average: 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 Elk Crossing Ever Fined?

ELK CROSSING 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 Elk Crossing on Any Federal Watch List?

ELK CROSSING 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.