BOYCE MANOR NURSING HOME
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Boyce Manor Nursing Home in Holdenville, Oklahoma, has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranked #198 out of 282 facilities in Oklahoma, they fall into the bottom half of nursing homes in the state, but they are #1 of 2 in Hughes County, meaning they are the best local option available. Unfortunately, the facility's performance is worsening, with issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 7 in 2025. Staffing is rated poorly, with a turnover rate of 64%, which is above the state average, suggesting that staff may not stay long enough to build relationships with residents. The facility has also incurred concerning fines totaling $165,556, indicating ongoing compliance problems. Additionally, RN coverage is average, but there have been critical incidents, including residents experiencing multiple falls due to inadequate intervention and one resident being assaulted by another, resulting in stab wounds. While the facility has some good quality measures, these serious issues raise significant concerns for families considering care for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- F
- In Oklahoma
- #198/282
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 64% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $165,556 in fines. Higher than 90% of Oklahoma facilities. Major compliance failures.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 11 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Oklahoma. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 32 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below Oklahoma average (2.6)
Significant quality concerns identified by CMS
18pts above Oklahoma avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Well above median ($33,413)
Significant penalties indicating serious issues
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
16 points above Oklahoma average of 48%
The Ugly 32 deficiencies on record
May 2025
2 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
On 04/29/25, an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to ensure residents were free from abuse.
On 04/29/25 at 4:35 p.m., the Oklahoma State Depa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 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
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facilty failed to review and revise the care plan for 1 (#1) of 5 sampled residents whose care plans were reviewed.
The administrator identified 44 residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2025
5 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete quarterly MDS assessments timely for one (#26) of sixteen ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 MDS assessments were coded accurately for two (#26 and #29) ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 a PRN order for an antianxiety medication had a 14 day stop date for one (#26) of five sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary ps...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
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 residents were bathed according to physician orders for two ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure RN coverage for eight consecutive hours seven days per week.
The MDS coordinator identified 48 residents resided in th...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2024
2 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
On 12/16/24 an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to protect Res #1's right to be free from abuse. Res #1 was assaulted by Res #2 resulting in ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to OSDH within two hours and failed to report an allegation of resident-to-resident abuse for two (#1 and #2)...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure ABN and NOMNC notices were signed and/or acknowledged by the resident and/or representative for two (#11 and #36) of two residents w...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed for one (#58) of 15 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain acceptable weight parameters and provide nutritional supplements as ordered by the physician for one (#11) of three ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the physician responded to a pharmacist MRR in a timely manner and according to the facility policy for two (#31 and #6) of five sam...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the removal of expired medications and supplies from the medic...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
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 comprehensive assessments were completed within 14 days afte...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0638
(Tag F0638)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Res #1 had diagnoses which included schizophrenia and hypertension.
A quarterly assessment, dated 08/18/23, was documented i...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 ensure MDS assessments were submitted and accepted by CMS no later than 14 days calendar days after completion.
The DON identified 56 resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 maintain an infection control program for transmission based precautions for one (#11) of one residents reviewed for transmis...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was stored and prepared under sanitary conditions.
The dietary manager identified 55 residents who received meals...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to submit PBJ data to CMS for the third quarter of the fiscal year for 2023.
The DON identified 56 residents resided in the facility.
Findings...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
12 deficiencies
1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL
(K)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On [DATE], an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to ensure residents wh...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a DNR form was signed by an individual who had the authority to sign for one (#28) of 16 residents whose advanced dire...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0637
(Tag F0637)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to conduct a significant change assessment when a resident had been discharged from hospice and subsequently re-admitted to Hosp...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Laboratory Services
(Tag F0770)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to obtain ordered laboratory services for one (#6) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications.
The Resident Census and Conditions...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Data
(Tag F0851)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to submit accurate data regarding direct care staffing information to CMS.
The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 43 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0941
(Tag F0941)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview the facility failed to include effective communications as mandatory training for direct care staff.
The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 43 residents res...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to conduct a comprehensive assessment not less than once every 12 months for two (#28 and #31) of five residents reviewed for resident assessm...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 encode assessments and transmit them to CMS within seven days of completion for three (#28, 31, and #38) of five residents sampled for resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the residents' status for two (#40 and #41) of five residents who was reviewed for resident assessme...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Res #21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses which included cognitive communication deficit, primary inso...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to display signs on the entry door instructing visitors on when and how infection control measures related to COVID-19 were to b...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 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
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to designate an RN to serve as DON on a full-time basis and ensure a RN served in the facility for at least eight consecutive hours a day, sev...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 3 life-threatening violation(s), $165,556 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 32 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $165,556 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Oklahoma. Major compliance failures.
- • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Boyce Manor's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns BOYCE MANOR NURSING HOME an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Boyce Manor Staffed?
CMS rates BOYCE MANOR NURSING HOME'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.
What Have Inspectors Found at Boyce Manor?
State health inspectors documented 32 deficiencies at BOYCE MANOR NURSING HOME during 2022 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 29 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 Boyce Manor?
BOYCE MANOR NURSING HOME 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 BGM ESTATE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 155 certified beds and approximately 45 residents (about 29% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in HOLDENVILLE, Oklahoma.
How Does Boyce Manor Compare to Other Oklahoma Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma, BOYCE MANOR NURSING HOME's overall rating (1 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 (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Boyce Manor?
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?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Boyce Manor Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, BOYCE MANOR NURSING HOME has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-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 Boyce Manor Stick Around?
Staff turnover at BOYCE MANOR NURSING HOME is high. At 64%, the facility is 18 percentage points above the Oklahoma average of 46%. 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 Boyce Manor Ever Fined?
BOYCE MANOR NURSING HOME has been fined $165,556 across 3 penalty actions. This is 4.8x the Oklahoma average of $34,734. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.
Is Boyce Manor on Any Federal Watch List?
BOYCE MANOR NURSING HOME 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.