HILL NURSING HOME, INC.

808 NORTHWEST M L KING AVENUE, IDABEL, OK 74745 (580) 286-5398
For profit - Corporation 51 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#231 of 282 in OK
Last Inspection: July 2024

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

Overview

Hill Nursing Home, Inc. has a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance and significant concerns about resident care. It ranks #231 out of 282 facilities in Oklahoma, placing it in the bottom half, and #2 out of 3 in McCurtain County, meaning only one local option is better. The facility's situation is worsening, with issues increasing from 7 in 2023 to 9 in 2024. Although staffing turnover is impressively low at 0%, the overall staffing rating is only 2 out of 5 stars, suggesting that there may not be enough staff to provide adequate care. Concerningly, the facility has incurred $116,810 in fines, which is higher than 97% of Oklahoma facilities, indicating ongoing compliance issues. In terms of RN coverage, it is average, which means that while there are some registered nurses available, they may not be as abundant as in better-performing facilities. Specific incidents include a critical failure to ensure background checks for 45 employees, raising serious safety concerns, and another critical issue where residents were served hot liquids at unsafe temperatures, posing a risk of burns. Additionally, the facility was found to have allowed one resident to suffer skin tears due to abuse, with five allegations of abuse reported in the last six months. Overall, while there are some strengths in staffing stability, the serious deficiencies highlight significant risks that families should carefully consider.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Oklahoma
#231/282
Bottom 19%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
7 → 9 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
$116,810 in fines. Lower than most Oklahoma facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 23 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Oklahoma. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 7 issues
2024: 9 issues

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

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Oklahoma average (2.6)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Federal Fines: $116,810

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Nov 2024 3 deficiencies 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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for one (#1) of three sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The deficient practice resulted in skin t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for one (#1) of three sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The deficient practice resulted in skin tears to the resident's wrists. The administrator identified five allegations of abuse in the last six months. Findings: A policy title Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, dated 08/07/24, read in part, The facility will have written procedures to assist staff in identifying the different types of abuse- mental/verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and the deprivation by an individual of goods and services. This includes staff to resident abuse and certain resident to resident altercations .An immediate investigation is warranted when suspicion of abuse, neglect or exploitation, or reports of abuse, neglect or occur .The facility will make efforts to ensure all residents are protected from physical and psychosocial harm, as well as additional abuse, during and after the investigation. Examples include but not limited to: D. Room or staffing changes, if necessary, to protect the resident(s) from the alleged perpetrator; E. Protection from retaliation; .The facility will have written procedures that include: 1. Reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services and to all other required agencies (e.g. law enforcement when applicable) within specified timeframes: a. Immediately, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made. A policy titled Compliance with Reporting Allegations of Abuse/Neglect/Exploitation, dated 08/07/24, read in part, When suspicion of abuse/neglect/exploitation or reports of abuse/neglect/exploitation occur, the following procedure will be initiated: 1. The Licensed Nurse will: a. Respond to the needs of the resident and protect him/her from further incident. b. Remove the accused employee from resident care areas. c. Notify the Administrator or designee. d. Notify the attending physician, resident's family/legal representative, and Medical Director. e. Monitor and document the resident's condition, including response to medical treatment or nursing interventions. f. Document actions taken in the medical record. A policy titled QAPI Coordination in Situations of Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, dated 08/07/24, read in part, All reports of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation, whether by staff or residents, will be communicated to the QAA committee for tracking and corrective action .The QAA committee will determine through a coordinated effort: a. If a thorough investigation is conducted; b. Whether the resident is protected; . e. Whether there is further need for systemic actions such as: . ii. Increased training on specific components of identifying and reporting that staff may not be aware of or are confused about; . iv. Measures to verify the implementation of corrective actions and timeframes, and v. Tracking patterns of similar occurrences. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbances, anxiety disorder, delusional disorders, and major depressive disorder. The care plan, dated 02/13/24, documented the resident had dementia with impaired cognition with frequent verbal and physical behaviors. The care plan documented staff were to leave the resident alone and retry later or get a different caregiver to provide care. A quarterly assessment, dated 07/08/24, documented the resident was severely impaired for daily decision making and required substantial/maximal assistance with most activities of daily living. A witness statement for incident reports, dated 07/28/24 at 12:00 p.m., documented an employee witnessed CMA #1 attempting to give medicine to the resident. The witness statement documented the resident did not want to take the medicine and threw the spoon at CMA #1. The witness statement documented the resident started hitting the CMA and the CMA took the cup of water they were holding and threw the water in the resident's face. The witness statement documented the resident started hitting CMA #1 again and the CMA stated, If your going to hit me then I'm going to make you hit yourself. The witness statement documented CMA #1 grabbed the resident by both wrists and hit them against the resident's face. It was documented the resident became more combative. The witness statement documented the CMA grabbed the resident again and stated, [Verbiage withheld] you better stop playing with me. The witness statement doucmented the CMA grabbed the resident by the wrists slamming the resident further back in the bed causing the resident to hit their head on the bed rails. An incident report, dated 07/28/24, documented an allegation of abuse for Resident #1 and CMA #1. The report documented the administrator was made aware of the incident on 07/29/24 at 1:00 p.m. by the resident's family. The report documented an investigation revealed Resident #1 became combative with CMA #1 and CMA #1 grabbed Resident #1's wrists causing skin tears. The report documented the primary care physician, family, administrator, and DON were notified and safety precautions maintained. A time card report, dated 07/28/24, documented CMA #1 worked from 7:51 a.m. to 12:38 a.m totaling 16.30 hours. A disciplinary report form, dated 07/28/24, documented on 07/29/24 LPN #2 was placed on suspension pending the investigation. The report documented LPN #2 was terminated for failure to notify the administrator, DON, and remove CMA #1 after the incident on 07/28/24. A disciplinary report form, dated 07/28/24, documented on 07/29/24 at 4:00 p.m. CMA #1 was placed on suspension pending an investigation. The report documented on 08/05/24 after the investigation was completed the staff member was terminated. A police department incident report, dated 07/29/24 at 8:50 p.m., documented the police was dispatched to the facility to take an information report. A fax transmission verification report, dated 07/29/24 at 8:51 p.m., documented the allegation of abuse was reported to the Oklahoma State Department of Health. A documented interview with Resident #1's family, dated 07/29/24, documented at 1:15 p.m. the family visited the resident and noticed the resident's right and left hands were bleeding. It was documented the family inquired about the injury and was told by CMA #1 the resident became combative and We weren't going to let [them] hit us. A class attendance record, dated 08/01/24, documented an in-service regarding elderly abuse and neglect was provided to staff. On 11/13/24 at 2:45 p.m., the APRN stated they were notified of the allegation of abuse regarding Resident #1 a few days after the incident occurred. On 11/14/24 at 9:43 a.m., the administrator stated LPN #2 did not report the allegation of abuse regarding Resident #1 to them or protect the resident from the identified staff member. The administrator stated they did not report the allegation of abuse to the Oklahoma State Department of Health within the two hour required time frame. The administrator stated the QAPI committee had not had a meeting since sometime in April 2024. The administrator stated the incident regarding the allegation of abuse had not been presented in a QAPI meeting. The administrator stated their abuse policy was not followed.
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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement their written abuse policies and procedures for one (#1) of two sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The administrator identifi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to implement their written abuse policies and procedures for one (#1) of two sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The administrator identified five allegations of abuse in the last six months. Findings: A policy titled Compliance with Reporting Allegations of Abuse/Neglect/Exploitation, dated 08/07/24, read in part, When suspicion of abuse/neglect/exploitation or reports of abuse/neglect/exploitation occur, the following procedure will be initiated: 1. The Licensed Nurse will: a. Respond to the needs of the resident and protect [them] from further incident. b. Remove the accused employee from resident care areas. c. Notify the Administrator or designee. d. Notify the attending physician, resident's family/legal representative, and Medical Director. e. Monitor and document the resident's condition, including response to medical treatment or nursing interventions. f. Document actions taken in the medical record. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbances, anxiety disorder, delusional disorders, and major depressive disorder. The care plan, dated 02/13/24, documented the resident had dementia with impaired cognition with frequent verbal and physical behaviors. The care plan documented the staff were to leave the resident alone and retry later or get a different caregiver to provide care. A quarterly assessment, dated 07/08/24, documented the resident was severely impaired for daily decision making and required substantial/maximal assistance with most activities of daily living. On 11/14/24 at 9:43 a.m., the administrator stated LPN #2 did not report the allegation of abuse regarding Resident #1 to them or protect the resident from the identified staff member. The administrator stated they did not report the allegation of abuse to the Oklahoma State Department of Health within the two hour required timeframe.
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 within the two hour required timeframe to the Oklahoma State Department of Health for one (#1) of three sampl...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse within the two hour required timeframe to the Oklahoma State Department of Health for one (#1) of three sampled residents reviewed for abuse. The administrator identified five allegations of abuse in the last six months. Findings: A policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, dated 08/07/24, read in part, The facility will have written procedures that include: 1. Reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services and to all other required agencies (e.g. law enforcement when applicable) within specified timeframes: a. Immediately, but no later than 2 hours after the allegation is made. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included dementia with behavioral disturbances, anxiety disorder, delusional disorders, and major depressive disorder. The care plan, dated 02/13/24, documented the resident had dementia with impaired cognition with frequent verbal and physical behaviors. The care plan documented the staff were to leave the resident alone and retry later or get a different caregiver to provide care. A quarterly assessment, dated 07/08/24, documented the resident was severely impaired for daily decision making and required substantial/maximal assistance with most activities of daily living. An incident report, dated 07/28/24, documented an allegation of abuse for Resident #1 and CMA #1. The report documented the administrator was made aware of the incident on 07/29/24 at 1:00 p.m. by the resident's family. The report documented an investigation revealed Resident #1 became combative with CMA #1 and CMA #1 grabbed Resident #1's wrists causing skin tears. The report documented the primary care physician, family, administrator, and DON was notified and safety precautions maintained. A fax transmission verification report, dated 07/29/24 at 8:51 p.m., documented the allegation of abuse was reported to the Oklahoma State Department of Health. On 11/14/24 at 9:43 a.m., the administrator stated LPN #2 did not report the allegation of abuse regarding resident #1 to them or protect the resident from the identified staff member. The administrator stated they did not report the allegation of abuse to the Oklahoma State Department of Health within the two hour required timeframe.
Jul 2024 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received proper pain management for one (#31) of one sampled resident who was reviewed for an injury of unknown origin. T...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident received proper pain management for one (#31) of one sampled resident who was reviewed for an injury of unknown origin. The administrator identified 40 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: A Pain - Clinical Protocol policy, revised on March 2018, read in part, The physician and staff will identify individuals who have pain or who are at risk for having pain. The nursing staff will assess each individual for pain .when there is onset of new pain .The nursing staff will identify any situations or interventions where an increase in the resident's pain may be anticipated; for example, .repositioning. Res #31 had diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, aphasia, right sided flaccid hemiplegia and osteoporosis. A physician's order, dated 03/10/23, documented Tylenol 325mg 1-2 every six hours as needed for pain. A progress note on 02/22/24 at 6:36 p.m., documented Res #31 had seizure like activity and was transferred to the local hospital emergency room. The resident returned the same day and staff noted Res #31 was unable to bear weight or tolerate range of motion and was holding their right hip hollering in pain. An order to obtain a right hip xray was obtained STAT. A progress note on 02/24/24 at 3:51 p.m. documented the right hip xray was obtained and at 6:08 p.m., the resident was transferred to the local hospital emergency room for a left hip fracture. A hospital xray report on 02/24/24 documented the resident had a comminuted fracture (fracture causing multiple bone splinters) of the left acetabulum (hip socket) with extension into the ischium (pelvis area). The report also documents a fracture of the right sacrum (lower part of the spine). The February medication administration record, documented Res #31 was not medicated for pain on 02/22/24, was given 650mg of Tylenol on 02/23/24 at 10:11 a.m., and 650mg of Tylenol on 02/24/24 at 2:35 p.m. 07/03/24 at 11:25 p.m., CMA #1 reported they did not feel the resident's Tylenol was effective for pain and stated, sometimes the Tylenol didn't touch their pain. CMA #1 reported they didn't know why they only gave the resident one dose of Tylenol. On 07/03/24 at 12:45 p.m., LPN #1 reported Res #31 was in pain with positioning and could not tolerate sitting up in a chair. LPN #1 reported calling the xray company to ask why the xray hadn't been done, but reports not calling the physician with an update. LPN #1 reported Tylenol helped some but the resident still had pain. LPN #1 reported they were sure the resident received more Tylenol than what was documented. LPN #1 reported not documenting the resident's pain and limitations with mobility in the nursing notes and stated, I probably didn't document about their pain because the resident wasn't in pain if they weren't being moved. On 07/03/24 at 1:05 p.m, the APRN reported there was no communication from the facility between giving the order for a STAT xray and getting the xray results. APRN reported they would have given an order to send the resident to the hospital had the facility called and reported no xray had been obtained and the resident's level of pain. On 07/03/24 at 2:00 p.m., the DON reported the physician should have been notified of the resident's continued pain and being unable to obtain the xray as ordered. The DON reported the nurses should have documented the resident's pain with mobility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the medical record was accurate for one (#31) of one sampled resident who was reviewed for an injury of unknown origin. The administ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the medical record was accurate for one (#31) of one sampled resident who was reviewed for an injury of unknown origin. The administrator identified 40 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: Res #31 had diagnoses which included cerebral infarction, aphasia, right sided flaccid hemiplegia and osteoporosis. A physician's order, dated 03/10/23, documented Tylenol 325mg 1-2 every six hours as needed for pain. A progress note on 02/22/24 at 6:36 p.m., documented Res #31 had seizure like activity and was transferred to the local hospital emergency room. The resident returned the same day and staff noted Res #31 was unable to bear weight or tolerate range of motion and was holding their right hip hollering in pain. An order to obtain a right hip xray was obtained STAT. A progress note on 02/24/24 at 3:51 p.m. documented the right hip xray was obtained and at 6:08 p.m., the resident was transferred to the local hospital emergency room for a left hip fracture. A hospital xray report on 02/24/24 documented the resident had a comminuted fracture (fracture causing multiple bone splinters) of the left acetabulum (hip socket) with extension into the ischium (pelvis area). The report also documents a fracture of the right sacrum (lower part of the spine). The February medication administration record, documented Res #31 was not medicated for pain on 02/22/24, was given 650mg of Tylenol on 02/23/24 at 10:11 a.m., and 650mg of Tylenol on 02/24/24 at 2:35 p.m. On 07/03/24 at 12:45 p.m., LPN #1 reported Res #31 was in pain with positioning and could not tolerate sitting up in a chair. LPN #1 reported Tylenol helped some but the resident still had pain. LPN #1 reported not documenting the resident's pain and limitations with mobility in the nursing notes and stated, I probably didn't document about their pain because the resident wasn't in pain if they weren't being moved. On 07/03/24 at 1:15 p.m., RN #1 reported the resident had pain with movement and positioning but felt the resident's pain wasn't excruciating and probably didn't document about the pain because the resident had no pain when they weren't being repositioned. The progress notes between 02/22/24 at 6:36 p.m. and 02/24/24 at 6:08 p.m., did not document the resident being in pain. On 07/03/24 at 2:00 p.m., the DON reported the nurses should have documented the resident's pain with mobility in the progress notes.
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 record review and interview, the facilty failed to impliment their policy regarding monitoring and measures to prevent the growth of Legionella bacteria for the facility. The administrator id...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facilty failed to impliment their policy regarding monitoring and measures to prevent the growth of Legionella bacteria for the facility. The administrator identified 40 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: A policy titled Legionella Water Management Program documented .our facility has a water management program, which is overseen by the water management team .The water management team will consist of at least the following personnel: a. The infection preventionist; b. The administrator; c. The medical director (or designee); d. The director of maintenance .The water management program includes the following elements: a. An interdisciplinary water management team; b. A detailed description and diagram of the water system in the facility, .d. The identification of situations that can lead to Legionella growth, .h. A system to monitor control limits and effectiveness of control measures; .j. Documentation of the program . On 07/03/24 at 9:00 a.m., the maintenance director stated they were not familiar with a Legionella program. The staff stated no monitoring documentation has been completed regarding Legionella.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

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 facilty failed to provide documentation regarding offering or given the pneumococcal v...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facilty failed to provide documentation regarding offering or given the pneumococcal vaccine for three (#5, 8, and #24) of five residents reviewed for immunizations. The administrator identified 40 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: A policy titled Pneumococcal Vaccine documented .Prior to or upon admission, residents are assessed for eligibility to receive the pneumococcal accine series, and when indiciated, are offered the vaccine series within thirty (30) days of admission to the facility . 1. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The immunization record for the resident did not document the pneumococcal vaccine was offered or given. 2. Resident #8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The immunization record for the resident did not document the pneumococcal vaccine was offered or given. 3. Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The immunization record for the resident did not document the pneumococcal vaccine was offered or given. On 07/03/24 at 10:16 a.m., the facility IP stated two of five residents reviewed for immunizations had received the pneumococcal vaccine. The IP stated they could not find documentation regarding the pneumococcal vaccine given or offered for the remaining three residents. The IP stated the facility pharmacy had not filled the prescription for the pneumococcal vaccine since 2019.
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 and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served in a safe and sanitary manner for the residents. The administrator identified 38 residents who a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served in a safe and sanitary manner for the residents. The administrator identified 38 residents who ate meals prepared by the kitchen and two resident who received nutrition via feeding tube. Findings: On 07/01/24 at 7:28 a.m., the refrigerator contained dozens of unpasteurized eggs. No pasteurized eggs were observed. The dietary aide was serving scrambled eggs for breakfast. The dietary aide stated the unpasteurized eggs were served and prepared as scrambled eggs, hard eggs, and sometimes over medium eggs. On 07/01/24 at 7:32 a.m., the DM stated they had not had pasteurized eggs for two weeks. The DM stated there were some residents who request hard eggs and one resident who requests over medium eggs. The DM stated they should be using pasteurized eggs. On 07/01/24 at 7:34 a.m., the refrigerator in the kitchen contained a bag of shredded cheese open to air and three containers containing a liquid cheese, gravy, and some type of meat not dated. On 07/01/24 at 7:35 a.m., the DM stated meat was from yesterdays meal and should be thrown out. The DM did not respond regarding the other undated items in the refrigerator. On 07/01/24 at 7:38 a.m., the refrigerator in the storage room contained thawed meat in a container with bloody juice and was uncovered. On 07/01/24 at 7:39 a.m., the DM stated the meat was thawed last Friday and was used for the alternate menu. The DM stated the meat should not be served if thawed more than two days.
CONCERN (F)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure menus were: a. prepared in advance, b. followed, and c. reviewed by the facility's dietitian or other qualified nutrit...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure menus were: a. prepared in advance, b. followed, and c. reviewed by the facility's dietitian or other qualified nutrition professional for the residents. The administrator identified 38 residents who ate meals prepared by the kitchen and two resident who received nutrition via feeding tube. Findings: The Facility Assessment Tool HNHINC, last updated 06/26/24, read in parts .OUR FACILITY IS CURRENTLY TRANSITIONING TO LIBERAL DIETS WITH DIET MODIFICATIONS AS REQUIRED TO MEET RESIDENTS' NEEDS. MENUS WILL BE CREATED BY OUR DSM AND STAFF AND APPROVED BY OUR REGISTERED DIETITIAN WITH CONSIDERATION OF SPECIALIZED DIETS AS ORDERED BY THE PCP. OUR CONSULTANT DIETITIAN VISITS THE FACILITY MONTHLY AND SUBMITS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE FACILITY TO PRIVIDE [sick] TO THE PCP'S FOR APPROVAL. QUARTERY IN-SERVICE TRAINING CLASSES ARE CONDUCTED BY THE RD . The facility menu provided did not document therapeutic diets or portions sizes. On 07/01/24 at 7:32 a.m. the DM was asked for a copy of the therapeutic menus. The DM pointed to a hand written menu with no portion sizes or therapeutic diets documented. The DM stated this was the menu provided for meals. On 07/02/24 at 11:57 a.m., the assistant administrator stated currently a part time cook, who was the previous dietary manager, made the facility menus and has for over a year. The assistant administrator stated the previous dietary manager was not certified and the dietitian does not sign off for the menus. On 07/02/24 at 12:15 p.m., the part time cook/ previous dietary manager stated they watched the residents eat and based on their likes and dislikes determined the menus. The cook stated the staff just know what portion sizes to give for the meals. The cook stated the kitchen staff should know portion sizes based on the education given at weekly meeting. On 07/02/24 at 1:43 p.m., the dietary aide stated they would know what to prepare and serve for the day when they arrive that morning. Stated the dinner meal was oven baked hot dogs with chili, tator tots, salad, and desert. The dietary aide did not know what the desert was for the dinner meal. The dietary aide stated they prepare what the DM tells them to prepare. On 07/02/24 at 2:05 p.m., the facility dietitian was contacted by phone. The dietitian stated they had not documented or signed off on menus in a year. The dietitian stated menus were prepared and signed off by the facility's food provider to their knowledge. On 07/03/24 at 10:05 a.m., the assistant administrator provided menus for a month. The assistant administrator stated the dietary did not follow the menus provided, but followed the menus prepared by the part time cook/previous dietary manager. On 07/03/24 at 12:10 p.m., the DM prepared the pureed diet for the residents. The DM stated the facility has beans every Wednesday and fish every Friday. The DM stated beans was not on the menu for every Wednesday, but that was what the kitchen served. On 07/03/24 at 5:38 p.m., the assistant administrator stated the kitchen had stopped serving beans every Wednesday, but guess they stated back. The assistant administrator stated the DM decided what the meal would be each day just like you would if you were home.
May 2023 7 deficiencies 2 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

On 05/10/23 at 11:45 a.m., an Immediate Jeopardy situation was determined to be in existence related to the facility failing to ensure residents were served hot liquids at a safe temperature to preven...

Read full inspector narrative →
On 05/10/23 at 11:45 a.m., an Immediate Jeopardy situation was determined to be in existence related to the facility failing to ensure residents were served hot liquids at a safe temperature to prevent injury or harm. On 05/10/23 at 11:55 a.m., the Oklahoma State Department of Health verified the existence of the Immediate Jeopardy situation. On 05/10/23 at 12:00 p.m., the Administrator was notified of the IJ situation. On 05/10/23 at 4:00 p.m., an acceptable plan of removal was submitted to the Oklahoma State Department of Health. The plan of removal documented: Preparation and/or completion of this plan do not constitute admission or agreement by the provider that immediate jeopardy exists. This response is also not to be construed of fault by the facility, its employees, agents or other individuals who draft or may be discussed in this response and immediate jeopardy removal plan. This immediate jeopardy removal plan is submitted as the facility's immediate actionable plan to remove the likelihood that serious harm to a resident will occur, or recur. 1. Identification of Residents Affected or Likely to be Affected: Include actions that were performed to address the citations for recipients who have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome as a result of the facility's noncompliance and the date the corrective actions were completed. (Completion Date: 05-10-23 @ 1600) List of all residents that drink hot liquids. 2. Actions to Prevent Occurrence/Recurrence: Include actions the facility will take to alter the process or system failure to prevent a serious adverse outcome from occurring or recurring, by whom and when those actions were completed. (Completion Date: 05/10/23) 1. Hot liquid safety evaluation on residents that drink hot liquids upon adm and quarterly 2. Individual temperature log on residents identified 2 a. Each identified resident will have a temp log for staff to record temp of hot liquid before serving 3. Inservice all employees on hot coffee temps (115 degrees), hot liquid eval; no coffee pots except one in kitchen; weekly hot liquid log 4. New coffee pot with temp regulation 5. Hot liquid policy update 6. Res #10 has non spill cup Res #22 (name omitted) 7. Employees not in-serviced will not be allowed to work until notified 8. C.P. updated 9. Hot liquid assess/eval completed on all current residents that drink hot liquids Review/modify current policies as applicable to ensure appropriate procedures are in place to prevent harm/potential harm. Person Assigned, staff, [name omitted], Date Completed, 05/10/23 New policies written/implemented when applicable to insure additional serious harm will be prevented. Person Assigned, staff [name omitted], Date Completed, 05/10/23. Checklists and monitoring tools used to verify compliance. Person Assigned, [name omitted] RN, Date Completed, 05/10/23. Educate necessary staff on facility procedures with return demonstration where applicable. Person Assigned, [name omitted] RN, [name omitted] DON, [name omitted] LPN, Date Completed 05/10/23. The IJ was lifted, effective 05/10/23 at 4:45 p.m., when all components of the plan of removal had been completed. The deficiency remains at a pattern with actual harm. Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure hot liquids were served at a safe temperature to prevent burns for two (#10 and #22) of two residents sampled with burns from hot coffee. The administrator identified 32 residents who drank hot liquids. 1. Res #10 was admitted with diagnoses which included left-sided hemiplegia (a severe loss of strength) and unspecified convulsions. A progress note, dated 07/20/22, read in part, .1015 called to residents room .noted reddened areas to abdomen, Silvadene applied to areas . An Incident Report Form, dated 07/20/22, read in part, .upon investigation, it is determined that resident frequently refuses coffe cup with lid. New cups have been ordered for use . A progress noted, dated 10/11/22, read in part, .up in wheelchair, in dining room, drinking coffee . A dietary note, dated 11/02/22, read in part, .only drinks coffee for fluids . A progress note, dated 11/21/22 at 9:01 p.m., documented the resident stated they spilled coffee on theirself that morning. The note documented a red area to the right inner thigh measuring 14.0 cm by 0.3 cm and an open blister measuring 4.0 cm by 0.6 cm. The note documented an order from the physician was obtained. On 11/21/22, a diagnosis of second degree burn of lower limb was documented. An Incident Report Form, dated 11/21/22, read in part, .upon investigation of incident, cup was dropped and the lid spilled coffee, resulting in a burn. Additional types of spill proof cups are being ordered to potentially prevent further incidents . A progress note, dated 11/22/22, read in parts, . left side weakness, assist x 1 for all adls .set up assist with meals . A progress note, dated 11/25/22 at 7:49 p.m., read in part, . pcp contacted at this time . coffee burn to (r) inner thigh has erythema (redness) noted to surrounding skin from approx. 0.5 cm to 4.0 cm in varying areas, very warm to touch; wound bed yellow, scant exudate (drainage) noted, surface of wound is sticky with exudate; order clarification received to continue silvadine bid . new order to start cephalexin (an antibiotic) 500 mg po tid x 10 days for dx: wound infection to (r) inner thigh .contact office Wednesday to bring resident in for eval and possible debridement of wound. resident c/o pain to area, very painful to touch . A progress note, dated 12/06/22 at 12:21 p.m., read in parts, .doctor visit n: 1030 am out of facility . appointment .for debridement of wound . 1220 pm retuned [sic] .wound to thigh debrided with dressing in place . A progress note, dated 01/05/23, read in parts, .continues with burn wound to posterior right thigh measuring 2.0 x 0.4 cm . 2. Res #22 was admitted with diagnoses which included cerebral infarction. A care plan, dated 09/18/22, documented Res #22 required setup assistance with meals. A progress note, dated 12/28/22 at 7:15 a.m., read in parts, .cna reports that as i was putting a throw blanket around resident shoulders, in the dining room, i spilled coffee on her lap .7.5 cm x 4.5 cm red area noted to l anterior thigh, 6 cm x 2.5 cm red area noted to l inner thigh, 3 cm x 3 cm red area noted to r anterior inner thigh, skin intact to all areas, no blistering noted @ this time, notified pcp, received order to cleanse areas with ns, pat dry and apply silvadene every day . An untitled document, dated 12/28/22, read in parts, .DON ordered small red cups for drinking coffee with a lid. CNA will place blanket before bringing to dine. Resident has treatment with Silvadene until healed. Resident only drinks coffee on occasion not every day drinker. Resident will have 1 on 1 during meals. The document was signed by the DON. A physician's order, dated 12/28/22, documented to cleanse red area to bilateral thighs with NS, pat dry, and apply silvadine every day for coffee burn. A progress note, dated 12/30/22, documented to continue with Silvadene treatment to thighs for coffee burn. On 05/10/23, at 7:30 a.m., multiple staff members were observed serving coffee in cups without lids or added ice to multiple residents in the dining room. On 05/10/23 at 8:30 a.m., Res #10 was observed in the dining room drinking coffee. On 05/10/23 at 10:15 a.m., a sample cup of coffee was requested, served in the same manner as to residents. The DM served the cup of coffee, upon receipt of the cup of coffee, the DM was requested to check the temperature of the coffee. The DM placed the thermometer into the cup, the temperature of the coffee was 180 degrees Fahrenheit. The DM asked if the 180 degree coffee was a safe temperature, the DM reported it was too hot. The DM also reported they had made the Administrator aware of the coffee being too hot in November 2022. On 05/10/23 at 10:25 a.m., the Assistant Administrator and Nurse Consultant were informed by the surveyor of the 180 degree coffee. The surveyor asked the Assistant Administrator if the coffee temperature was a safe temperature and the Assistant Administrator reported they were not aware of safe temperatures for hot liquids. The Assistant Administrator reported Res #10 was served coffee in a cup with a lid on it and other residents were served coffee with ice. The Assistant Administrator reported they were not aware of the amount of ice or the temperature of the coffee before it was served to residents. On 05/10/23 at 10:45 a.m., the Assistant Administrator provided a Resident Census/Roster, the roster documented 21 residents drank coffee and 16 of the 21 residents were served coffee without ice. The roster did not document residents who drank coffee from cups with lids.
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

On 05/12/23 at 3:30 p.m., an Immediate Jeopardy situation was determined to be in existence related to the facility failing to ensure background screenings were completed for 45 of 66 employees. On 0...

Read full inspector narrative →
On 05/12/23 at 3:30 p.m., an Immediate Jeopardy situation was determined to be in existence related to the facility failing to ensure background screenings were completed for 45 of 66 employees. On 05/12/23 at 3:50 p.m., the Oklahoma State Department of Health verified the existence of the Immediate Jeopardy situation. On 05/12/23 at 4:00 p.m., the administrator was notified of the IJ situation. On 05/12/23 at 6:00 p.m., an acceptable plan of removal was submitted to the Oklahoma State Department of Health. The plan of removal documented: Preparation and/or completion of this plan do not constitute admission or agreement by the provider that immediate jeopardy exists. This response is also not to be construed of fault by the facility, its employees, agents or other individuals who draft or may be discussed in this response and immediate jeopardy removal plan. This immediate jeopardy removal plan is submitted as the facility's immediate actionable plan to remove the likelihood that serious harm to a resident will occur, or recur. 1. Identification of Residents Affected or Likely to be Affected: Include actions that were performed to address the citations for recipients who have suffered, or are likely to suffer, a serious adverse outcome as a result of the facility's noncompliance and the date the corrective actions were completed. All residents have the potential to be affected by this deficient practice. 2. Actions to Prevent Occurrence/Recurrence: Include actions the facility will take to alter the process or system failure to prevent a serious adverse outcome from occurring or recurring, by whom and when those actions were completed. 1. Completed 100% audit on all missing employee background checks 2. Nurse consultant in-serviced Administrator, Asst. Admin, DON on background checks. 3. Asst. Administrator and Administrator will in-service department manager on facility's background check policy. 4. All current employees will have a background check completed. 5. All future employees will have a background check completed within 2 days of an offer of employment or contractual agreement. 6. Administrator and Assistant Administrator will monitor for the submission of background checks within 2 days after hiring. Administrator and/or Asst. Administrator will continue monitoring the submission of background checks and results as part of their job description. QA Nurse will review background checks monthly for 6 months or longer until compliance is achieved. Review/modify current policies as applicable to ensure appropriate procedures are in place to prevent harm/potential harm. Person Assigned, [name omitted], Adm., [name omitted], Asst. Admin, Date Completed, 05/12/23 New policies written/implemented when applicable to insure additional serious harm will be prevented. Person Assigned, [name omitted], Adm., [name omitted], Asst. Admin, Date Completed, 05/12/23 Checklists and monitoring tolls used to verify compliance. Person Assigned, [name omitted], Adm., [name omitted], Asst. Admin, Date Completed, 05/12/23 Educate necessary staff on facility procedures with return demonstration where applicable. Person Assigned, [name omitted], Adm., [name omitted], Asst. Admin, Date Completed 05/12/23. Addendum to Removal of IJ for failure to complete background checks and fingerprint test. Actions to Prevent Occurrence/Recurrence: All fingerprinting will be completed by 4 p.m., Friday, 5/19/23. Results are expected within 5-7 business days after the completion of the test, via email, according to IdentoGo's policies and procedures 05/26/23 at 5 p.m. All future fingerprinting will be initiated within 2 days of an offer of employment and completed prior to employment. Fingerprint testing will be scheduled by the DON and/or MDS Coordinator. The DON and MDS Coordinator have been in-serviced on this upgrade by the Admin. The Administrator and/or Assistant Administrator will monitor for accuracy and completeness to ensure compliance. The Administrator and/or Assistant Administrator will monitor the systemic change weekly for 6 months. The QA nurse will monitor this systemic change for 6 mos. The IJ was lifted, effective 05/12/23 at 6:07 p.m., when all components of the plan of removal had been completed. The deficiency remained at a widespread level with potential for harm. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement the facility's policy to ensure background screenings were completed prior to employment for 45 of 66 employees reviewed for background screening. The administrator reported there were 66 employees. Findings: A Background Screening Investigation policy, revised 03/19, read in parts, .Background and criminal checks are initiated within two days of an offer of employment or contract agreement, and completed prior to employment . On 05/11/23 at 4:00 p.m., the assistant administrator was asked to provide background checks for five (CNA #3, CNA #4, RN #1, LPN#2, and LPN #3) staff members. The Assistant Administrator provided one, (RN #1) of the five background checks requested. On 05/12/23 at 9:30 a.m., the DON reported no one currently in the building had access to run background checks. On 05/12/23 at 9:45 a.m., the administrator reported they didn't know if background checks had been done on all staff. The administrator also reported the office had been cleaned out and they were unable to locate background checks previously stored in the office. The administrator was asked to provide documentation of background checks for all staff currently on duty. On 05/12/23 at 10:25 a.m., the administrator reported the background checks requested were unavailable. The administrator reported the staff member responsible for the background checks was unavailable. She reported, We are looking for them. The administrator was asked to provide the background checks for all staff on duty. The administrator identified 21 staff currently on duty. On 05/12/23 at 11:00 a.m., the administrator provided background screenings for seven of the 21 staff currently on duty. Documentation provided by the administrator showed the number of employees hired with no background screening per year as: 1992 - 1 1998 - 1 1999 - 1 2000 - 2 2006 - 1 2009 - 2 2011 - 1 2013 - 1 2015 - 3 2016 - 1 2017 - 3 2018 - 1 2019 - 1 2020 - 2 2021 - 4 2022 - 10 2023 - 10 Total - 45 The Hill Nursing Home Employee Roster, dated 05/12/23, provided by the ONBC (OK-Screen) & Detention Programs, documented the facility had requested screening for 39 employees. On 05/12/23 at 11:15 a.m., the administrator reported they didn't know why the Hill Nursing Home Employee Roster did not document all 66 employees. The administrator and assistant administrator reported they did not have access to the ONBC (OK-Screen) & Detention Programs and were not familiar with the system or the process of submitting employee information for background screenings. On 05/12/23 at 11:17 a.m., the assistant administrator reported they were unable to log into the system to submit employee background screenings and requested assistance from the surveyor. On 05/12/23 at 11:20 a.m., the administrator reported employees should have had background screenings conducted as per the facility's policy. The administrator reported, Due to the pandemic we have had to let other things go and we need to get back on track.
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a care plan for a resident with burns from drinking hot liquid for one (#22) of two sampled residents who had burns from hot liquid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a care plan for a resident with burns from drinking hot liquid for one (#22) of two sampled residents who had burns from hot liquids. The DON identified 32 residents who drank hot liquids. Findings: A comprehensive care plan, dated 09/18/22, did not include a care plan for Res #22's burns. A nursing note, dated 12/28/22 at 7:51 a.m., read in parts, CNA reports that as I was putting a throw blanket around resident shoulders .I spilled coffee on her lap', .7.5CM x 4.5CM read area noted to L anterior thigh, 6CM x 2.5CM red area noted to L inner thigh, 3CM x3CM red area noted to R anterior inner thigh, .received order to cleanse areas with NS, pat dry and apply Silvadene (medication for burns) every day . A physician's order, dated 12/28/22, read in part, Cleanse red area to bilat. thighs with NS, pat dry and apply Silvadene Qday - Dx: Coffee burn. On 05/10/23 at 2:00 p.m., the DON reported a care plan should have been developed for Res #22 when they sustained burns from hot coffee.
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to revise a care plan with interventions to prevent falls for one (#11) of one sampled resident reviewed for falls. The DON identified 25 resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to revise a care plan with interventions to prevent falls for one (#11) of one sampled resident reviewed for falls. The DON identified 25 residents who had falls since October 2022. Findings: A nursing note, dated 10/27/22, read in parts, .resident resting on floor, right lateral side position, knees drawn up to his chest. Left hand (posterior) side has skin torn .received order to send to ER .fall, head and hand injury .laceration to right forehead above eye. Blue discoloration under eye (bruising) .call Orthopedic .at 0800 and make an appointment to follow up in regards to 3rd and 4th digit fractures . A nursing note, dated 11/11/22 at 7:29 a.m., read in parts, Resident found on floor in common area .no injury noted . A nursing note, dated 04/04/23 at 10:59 p.m., read in parts, .fell in floor, no injuries noted . A fall care plan, dated 05/19/22 and last revised on 04/04/23, was not updated with each fall to include interventions to prevent falls. On 5/10/23 at 3:00 p.m., the DON and MDS Coordinator reported Res #11's care plan should have been updated with each fall to include an intervention to prevent falls.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified of out of parameter blood sugars and failed to obtain a physician's order to hold insulin for one (#1) of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified of out of parameter blood sugars and failed to obtain a physician's order to hold insulin for one (#1) of one sampled resident on insulin. The DON identified five residents on insulin. Findings: A physician's order, dated 09/18/19, read in parts, .Obtain FSBS BID .Notify PCP if BS is <80 or >400 every time . A blood sugar log from 01/27/23 through 04/25/23 documented the following out of parameter blood sugars and interventions: 01/27/23 at 7:27 a.m. - 69 02/03/23 at 6:20 a.m. - 53 02/04/23 at 11:38 a.m. - 62 02/07/23 at 2:51 p.m. - 79 02/07/23 at 12:13 p.m. - 79 02/25/23 at 11:45 a.m. - 63 02/25/23 at 8:26 a.m. - 65 04/12/23 at 8:04 a.m. - 81 held 6u novolin r this am 04/19/23 at 12:02 a.m. - lo 04/20/23 at 8:20 a.m. - 56 04/20/23 8:50 a.m. - 70 04/25/23 6:57 a.m. - 63 A nursing note, dated 04/16/23 at 9:59 p.m., read in parts, .Blood sugar 59 at this time . Nov R (fast acting insulin) 6u held, resident given OJ and a snack . A nursing note, dated 04/21/23 at 9:18 a.m., read in parts, .resi in floor with uncontrolled movements of arms and legs .cold and clammy .gave candy, FSBS 56 .Gave OJ and sugar, 0850AM FSBS 70 more alert . There was neither documentation to show the physician was notified of Res #1's out of parameter blood sugars nor orders obtained to hold Res #1's insulin. On 05/11/23 at 11:30 a.m., the DON stated, Nurses should be notifying the physician/NP of out of parameter blood sugars and documenting the notification in the nursing notes. They should not even be holding insulin without talking to the NP. The NP has told us that she does not want us holding insulin without notifying her first.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were obtained for oxygen therapy and oxygen tubing was changed and labeled for one (#6) of one samp...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure physician's orders were obtained for oxygen therapy and oxygen tubing was changed and labeled for one (#6) of one sampled resident reviewed for oxygen therapy. The DON identified four residents who were on oxygen therapy. Findings: An Oxygen Administration policy, revised October 2010, read in parts, .Verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure . On 05/08/23 at 3:45 p.m., Res #6 was observed with oxygen in use, tubing not labeled, and dated. A care plan for Res #6, dated 05/09/23, read in part, .O2 @ 2 l/m via nc. There were no physician's orders for oxygen therapy for Res #6. On 05/09/23 at 10:00 a.m., Res #6 was observed with oxygen in use, tubing not labeled, and dated. On 05/10/23 at 1:00 p.m., Res #6 was observed with oxygen in use, tubing not labeled, and dated. On 05/11/23 at 9:30 a.m., Res #6 was observed with oxygen in use, tubing not labeled, and dated On 05/11/23 at 3:30 p.m., the MDS Coordinator reported the oxygen tubing should have been changed and labeled weekly on the night shift. On 05/11/23 at 3:40 p.m., LPN #1 reported the oxygen tubing should have been changed and labeled weekly on the night shift. On 05/11/23 at 4:00 p.m., the DON reported Res #6 should have had an order for oxygen therapy and the tubing should have been labeled and dated.
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure puree diets were prepared in a sanitary manner. The Dietary Manager (DM) identified two of two sampled residents who received a pureed...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure puree diets were prepared in a sanitary manner. The Dietary Manager (DM) identified two of two sampled residents who received a pureed diet. Findings: On 05/11/23 between 12:00 p.m. and 12:28 p.m., the Dietary Manager was observed pureeing green peas and chicken fried steak. The DM picked up a rubber spatula by the blade with ungloved hands and used the spatula blade to scrape the green peas out of the blender bowl. The DM placed two pieces of chicken fried steak into the blender bowl. The DM was unable to get the blender bowl and blade secured and reached into the bowl with ungloved hands and held a piece of chicken fried steak in their hand above the blender bowl while they secured the blade. Once the blender blade was secured the chicken fried steak was placed back into the blender bowl and pureed. On 05/12/23 at 9:30 a.m., the DM reported they didn't remember touching the food with their hands and stated what you observed is a problem because I should have been wearing gloves and shouldn't have touched the food with my hands.
Apr 2022 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0800 (Tag F0800)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure pasteurized eggs served to residents were fully cooked for one (#7) of one sampled resident served over easy eggs. The administrator ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure pasteurized eggs served to residents were fully cooked for one (#7) of one sampled resident served over easy eggs. The administrator identified 29 residents received food from the kitchen. Findings: On 04/13/22 at 8:50 a.m., Res #7 was observed being served an unpasteurized, over-easy egg. On 04/13/22 at 9:28 a.m., the DM reported the facility was unable to purchase pasteurized eggs. The DM reported unpasteurized eggs were to be fully cooked before serving.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure policies were in place to track vaccination status for six (CNA #11, medical director, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, dietician, an...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure policies were in place to track vaccination status for six (CNA #11, medical director, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, dietician, and the quality assurance consultant) of 62 employees. The HRA identified 62 staff were employed at the facility. Findings: The NHSN information, for the week of 03/27/22, documented 57.4% of staff were fully vaccinated. The Covid-19 Staff Vaccination Status for Providers, provided by the IP on 04/13/22, documented the total number of staff as 60. It documented 78.3% of staff were fully vaccinated. On 04/13/22 at 1:30 p.m., the facility was unable to provide the surveyor with a vaccination tracking policy. On 04/13/22 at 1:30 p.m., the facility was unable to provide documentation of the vaccination status for six (CNA #11, medical director, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, dietician, and the quality assurance consultant )employees. On 04/13/22 at 11:30 a.m., the IP reported there was not a process for tracking the vaccination status for new employees. She further reported she was not aware of the total number of staff employed by the facility. On 04/13/22 at 1:30 p.m., the AA reported the facility did not have a process for tracking the vaccination status of new employees. She also reported policies or procedures on staff vaccination. On 04/13/22 at 2:00 p.m, the Administrator reported the facility did not have policies and procedures for the staff vaccination status. She also reported there was not a process to track the vaccination status of new employees.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0888 (Tag F0888)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure: A. documentation of staff vaccination status for one, (CNA #11), of 62 facility employees reviewed and five (medical director, nur...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure: A. documentation of staff vaccination status for one, (CNA #11), of 62 facility employees reviewed and five (medical director, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, dietician, and the quality assurance consultant) of five individuals who provided services. B. the development and implementation of COVID-19 vaccination policies and procedures for staff. The HRA identified 62 staff were employed at the facility and five personnel provided services under contract. Findings: The Covid-19 Staff Vaccination Status for Providers documented the total number of staff as 60. On 04/12/22, the facility did not provide surveyor with a policy to show documentation of vaccination tracking. On 04/13/22 at 1:30 p.m., the IP was asked about the discrepancy in the total number of staff provided by the HRA and theCovid-19 Staff Vaccination Status for Providers document she provided. She stated it was due to the absence of a process for tracking the vaccination status of newly hired staff. On 04/13/22 at 1:45 p.m., the Administrator and Assistant Administrator were asked to provide the policies and procedures for staff vaccinations. They reported the facility did not have policies or procedures for tracking Covid-19 vaccinations for staff. They also reported there were no processes to determine staff vaccination exemption status, staff education for vaccinations, or contingency plans for staff who were not fully vaccinated.
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?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "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
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 2 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $116,810 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 19 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $116,810 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Oklahoma. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Hill, Inc.'s CMS Rating?

CMS assigns HILL NURSING HOME, INC. 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 Hill, Inc. Staffed?

CMS rates HILL NURSING HOME, INC.'s staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Hill, Inc.?

State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at HILL NURSING HOME, INC. during 2022 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 16 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 Hill, Inc.?

HILL NURSING HOME, INC. 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 51 certified beds and approximately 39 residents (about 76% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in IDABEL, Oklahoma.

How Does Hill, Inc. Compare to Other Oklahoma Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma, HILL NURSING HOME, INC.'s overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.6 and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Hill, Inc.?

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?" "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 substantiated abuse finding on record, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Hill, Inc. Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, HILL NURSING HOME, INC. 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 2 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 Hill, Inc. Stick Around?

HILL NURSING HOME, INC. has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.

Was Hill, Inc. Ever Fined?

HILL NURSING HOME, INC. has been fined $116,810 across 2 penalty actions. This is 3.4x the Oklahoma average of $34,247. 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 Hill, Inc. on Any Federal Watch List?

HILL NURSING HOME, INC. 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.