LEXINGTON NURSING HOME, INC.

632 SOUTHEAST 3RD STREET, LEXINGTON, OK 73051 (405) 527-6531
For profit - Limited Liability company 70 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
75/100
#62 of 282 in OK
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: June 2024

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

Overview

Lexington Nursing Home, Inc. has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good option for families seeking care, though there is room for improvement. It ranks #62 out of 282 facilities in Oklahoma, placing it in the top half, and #4 out of 10 in Cleveland County, meaning only three local facilities are rated higher. The facility is improving; it decreased from 8 issues in 2023 to 3 in 2024, showing progress in addressing concerns. Staffing is a strength, with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 46%, which is better than the state average of 55%, suggesting experienced staff who know the residents well. However, there have been some issues, such as failing to develop a comprehensive care plan for diabetic monitoring and not revising care plans related to falls, which indicates potential gaps in care management. Additionally, while they have no fines on record, ensuring cleanliness in the kitchen has been a concern, with multiple maintenance issues noted during inspections. Overall, the facility shows promise but needs to address these weaknesses for improved resident care.

Trust Score
B
75/100
In Oklahoma
#62/282
Top 21%
Safety Record
Low Risk
No red flags
Inspections
Getting Better
8 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
46% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Oklahoma facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 19 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Oklahoma. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2023: 8 issues
2024: 3 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

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

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 46%

Near Oklahoma avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record

Jun 2024 3 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 medications were coded accurately on MDS assessments for two (#1 and #3) of 12 sampled residents MDS were reviewed. The Administrato...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were coded accurately on MDS assessments for two (#1 and #3) of 12 sampled residents MDS were reviewed. The Administrator identified 43 residents who resided in the facility. Findings: 1. Resident #1 had diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease. A Quarterly assessment, dated 04/22/24, documented Resident #1 received anticoagulant. There was no documentation the resident received an anticoagulant during the look back period. 2. Resident #3 had diagnoses which included acute cystitis. A Quarterly assessment, dated 04/01/24, documented Resident #3 received an antidepressant. There was no documentation the resident received an antidepressant during the look back period. On 06/27/24 at 11:24 a.m., MDS coordinator #2 stated they review the documentation in the EHR to ensure the MDS was coded accurately. They reviewed Resident #1 and #3's assessments and stated they were not coded accurate regarding their medications.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for diabetic monitoring for one (#9) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. MDS coordina...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for diabetic monitoring for one (#9) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. MDS coordinator #1 identified eight residents with diabetes. Findings: Res #9 was admitted with diagnoses which included type II diabetes mellitus. A physician order, dated 07/30/23, documented obtaining finger stick blood sugar if resident becomes symptomatic. A physician order, dated 07/30/23, documented offering a diabetic protein snack at bedtime. An admission assessment, dated 08/07/23, documented the resident was cognitively intact and received insulin. A physician order, dated 09/06/23, documented to administer Trulicity 0.75 mg/0.5 ml subcutaneously once a day on Thursdays for diabetes mellitus. A physician order, dated 01/11/24, documented obtaining finger stick blood sugar daily on Wednesdays. A care plan, reviewed 06/27/24, did not document Res #9's diabetic monitoring. On 06/27/24 at 11:30 a.m., MDS coordinator #1 stated they did not know diabetic monitoring needed to be included on the care plan.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to revise the care plan related to falls for one (#9) of three residents sampled for falls. The administrator identified 84 fall...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to revise the care plan related to falls for one (#9) of three residents sampled for falls. The administrator identified 84 falls in the last six months. Findings: A Managing Falls and Fall Risk policy, revised March 2018, read in parts, .If falling recurs despite initial interventions, staff will implement additional or different interventions, or indicate why the current approach remains relevant .If underlying causes cannot be readily identified or corrected, staff will try various interventions based on assessment of the nature or category of falling, until falling is reduced or stopped, or until the reason for the continuation of falling is identified as unavoidable . Res #9 had diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease, seizures, and overactive bladder. A care plan, dated 08/08/23, documented the resident had the potential for falls secondary to balance problems during transition and walking, history of falls prior to admission, and routine antidepressant medication. The eight fall prevention interventions documented under this problem were dated 08/08/23. Incident reports, dated 01/08/24, 01/11/24, 02/02/24, 02/05/24, 02/08/24, 02/12/24, 02/13/24, 02/15/24, 02/18/24, and 02/22/24, documented Res #9 had fell. No additional interventions addressing fall prevention were documented on the care plan after the falls. A quarterly MDS assessment, dated 05/06/24, documented the resident was independent with mobility, transfers, and locomotion with use of a walker. The assessment documented the resident had two or more falls without injury, two or more falls with injury, and one fall with major injury. On 06/24/24 at 9:38 a.m., Res #9 was observed lying in bed. Res #9 stated they had fell on several occasions. Res #9 stated they had a lump on the back of their head from two previous falls which required staples to close the wound. On 06/27/24 at 11:35 a.m., MDS coordinator #1 stated they completed the residents' care plan. They stated after a fall occurs, an incident report is completed, the fall is discussed in an interdisciplinary meeting, and a new fall prevention intervention is added to the care plan. MDS coordinator #1 stated Res #9's care plan had not been revised after every fall but should have been. On 06/27/24 at 1:34 p.m., the DON stated a fall prevention intervention is documented on the incident report after a fall occurs. They stated the care plan should have been updated to reflect these interventions.
Jun 2023 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was treated with dignity during a transfer for one (#27) of one sampled resident observed for dignity. The...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident was treated with dignity during a transfer for one (#27) of one sampled resident observed for dignity. The Resident Census and Conditions of Resident report, dated 06/19/23, documented 39 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #27 had diagnoses which included acute cystitis without hematuria, osteoarthritis, HTN, and inflammatory spondylopathy. A quarterly resident assessment, dated 03/20/23, documented the resident required extensive assistance with transfers. On 06/20/23 at 11:07 a.m., CNA #1 was observed in the resident's room assisting them out of their recliner to their wheelchair. The resident was observed to bear weight by the CNA placing their hand under the resident's right arm. After the resident completed the pivot to their wheelchair the CNA was observed lowering the resident by their pants into their wheelchair. On 06/20/23 at 11:14 a.m., CNA #1 was asked when they transferred Res #27 from their recliner to their wheelchair, should they have assisted them by placing their hand under the resident's arm or by using their pants. They stated they should have used a gait belt. On 06/20/23 at 11:26 a.m., the DON was asked what was the protocol for a one person transfer. They stated staff should use a gait belt. They were made aware of the above observation.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Requirements (Tag F0622)

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 there was sufficient documentation for basis of a resident d...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure there was sufficient documentation for basis of a resident discharge for one (#42) of one sampled resident review for discharge. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 06/19/23, documented 39 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included burn of second degree of right and left foot, burn of second degree of right lower leg, presence of cardiac pacemaker, osteoarthritis, hypothyroidism, diabetes mellitus, hyperkalemia, HTN, heart failure, and COPD. A daily meeting minutes report, dated 04/12/23 at 8:55 a.m., documented Res #42 to discharge with a question mark behind their name. A nurse progress note, dated 04/12/23 at 1:12 p.m., documented the facility had a morning meeting concerning the behavior of the resident. It was documented a decision was made for the resident to be discharged from the facility. It was documented MDS coordinator #1 spoke with the resident's family member making them aware of the pending discharge for this morning. It was documented the family member stated they would be at the facility around 10:15 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. to get their family member. It was documented the resident's personal belongings and medications were released to the family member. It was documented there was no outside agency referral at the request of the family member. It was documented the resident left in a private vehicle from the facility at 10:25 a.m. A Discharge summary, dated [DATE], documented the resident was discharged unexpectedly due to inappropriate behavior toward staff members. There was no documentation of any incidents where the resident had inappropriate behaviors. On 06/20/23 at 3:04 p.m., the DON was asked about the circumstance surrounding the resident's discharge. They stated they would need to find out what they could say about the discharge. On 06/20/23 at 3:16 p.m., the DON stated when the resident came in they had refused to cooperate with medical treatment. They stated the resident asked a staff member to dance for them and the staff member was very offended. They stated the next morning there was a meeting with the administrator. The resident's family member was informed of the behaviors and they signed the resident out of the facility voluntarily. They stated that was the reason there was no documentation of the incident. They stated the staff member did not want to fill out an incident report. They stated the staff member was crying and very offended. The DON was asked to provide documentation the resident's family member voluntarily discharged the resident from the facility. There was no documentation the resident refused to cooperate with medical treatment. On 06/20/23 at 3:23 p.m., the resident's family member was called and a message was left for a return call. On 06/20/23 at 3:45 p.m., the DON stated the voluntary discharge paperwork was in the resident's chart. They provided the resident's face sheet. On the bottom of the sheet was hand written documentation the resident was discharged home with a family member 04/11/23. The family member's signature was on the facesheet. The DON was made aware the resident was discharged on 04/12/23 and the documentation did not indicate the discharge was voluntary. On 06/20/23 at 4:00 p.m., the administrator was asked about the resident's discharge. They stated when they got to work on the morning of 04/12/23 everyone came in their office and there was a quick discussion about the resident. They were asked what behaviors did the resident exhibit. They stated the sexual stuff with the nurse, but it was all hearsay. The administrator was asked if anyone was endangered by the resident's behavior. They stated they were not. They stated that was just the initial report they got. They stated they had not even starting investigating. They stated they had a meeting and the resident's family member was contacted about what was happening. They stated sometime that day the resident's family member came and picked them up and they discharged . The administrator was asked about documentation related to the resident's discharge. They stated they had them sign the facesheet, medication sheets, and inventory sheet. They stated they do not have a form for residents who discharge voluntarily. The administrator was made aware there was no documentation related to any inappropriate behavior displayed by the resident or the resident refusing to cooperate with care. They were made aware the nurse's progress note read a decision was made by the facility to discharge the resident and the resident's family member was notified of the pending discharge. They were made aware there was no documentation the resident's family member voluntarily discharged the resident from the facility. On 06/21/23 at 2:30 p.m., a return call was received from Res #42's family member. They were was asked about the circumstance surrounding the resident's discharge. They stated the facility called them to come get Res #42 on 04/12/23. They stated they could not say what behaviors Res #42 had, but there had been a disagreement between the owner and Res #42. They stated the only meeting they had with the facility was before Res #42 was admitted .
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 change and label oxygen tubing and concentrator reservoir according to physician orders for one (#11) of one residents sample...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to change and label oxygen tubing and concentrator reservoir according to physician orders for one (#11) of one residents sampled for respiratory treatments. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form dated 06/19/23, documented 39 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #11 had diagnoses which included COPD. A physician order, dated 04/29/23, documented to clean filter on oxygen concentrator and date bottle with time and initial. The order documented to change oxygen tubing with date and initials every Friday. An admission assessment, dated 05/06/23, documented the resident was cognitively intact, had shortness of breath, and received oxygen therapy. On 06/20/23 at 9:25 a.m., Res #11 was observed during a breathing treatment. The resident had oxygen delivered by nasal cannula at three liters per minute. The oxygen concentrator was observed at the foot of the bed. The concentrator humidification bottle was observed with a tape label on the bottle that documented 06/03/23. On 06/20/23 at 9:27 a.m., LPN #1 stated the concentrator bottle should be changed weekly on Friday by 3-11 shift. LPN #1 was shown the bottle label and stated it was not changed as ordered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the results of the use of PRN pain medications were obtained for one (#36) of five sampled residents reviewed for medications. The ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the results of the use of PRN pain medications were obtained for one (#36) of five sampled residents reviewed for medications. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 06/19/23, documented 39 residents resided in the facility. It documented 21 residents were on a pain management program. Findings: Res #36 had diagnoses which included pain. A physician order, dated 03/28/23, documented hydrocodone-acetaminophen (pain medication) 7.5-325 mg one tab orally every six hours as needed. The April and May 2023 MARs were reviewed. There were no results for the administration of hydrocodone-acetaminophen on 04/19/23 and 05/22/23. On 06/20/23 at 10:01 a.m., the DON was asked what was the protocol for administering as needed pain medications. The DON stated the date, time, staff initials, medication, the reason the medication was administered, and the result should be documented on the back of the MAR. They were shown the resident's April and May 2023 MARs where there was no documented result on 04/19/23 and 05/22/23 for the administration of hydrocodone-acetaminophen.
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 side effects were monitored for the use of psychoactive medications for one (#36) of five sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure side effects were monitored for the use of psychoactive medications for one (#36) of five sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 06/19/23, documented 31 residents who received psychoactive medications. Findings: Res #36 had diagnoses of anorexia, insomnia, and depression. Physician orders, dated 03/28/23, documented Lexapro (antidepressant medication) 20 mg once a day; Remeron (antidepressant medication) 15 mg at bedtime; and temazepam (benzodiazepine medication) 30 mg at bedtime. A care plan, dated 04/05/23, documented the resident was receiving Lexapro, Remeron, and temazepam. It was documented for staff to screen and observed for suspected side effects according to the behavior monitoring record. There was no documentation side effect monitoring was conducted for May 2023. On 06/20/23 at 10:01 a.m., the DON was asked to provide side effect monitoring documentation for the month of May 2023 for the resident's use of Lexapro, Remeron, and temazepam. On 06/20/23 at 10:25 a.m., the DON stated they could not locate documentation side effects were monitored for May 2023. They stated a side effect monitoring sheet should have been completed.
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 of record review and interview, the facility failed to obtain physician ordered labs for one (#24) of five sampled residents reviewed for lab services. The Resident Census and Conditions of Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based of record review and interview, the facility failed to obtain physician ordered labs for one (#24) of five sampled residents reviewed for lab services. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 06/19/23, documented 39 residents resided in the facility. Findings: Res #24 had diagnoses which included congestive heart failure, hyperlipidemia, hypokalemia, and diabetes mellitus. A physician order, dated 02/07/23, documented CBC, CMP, and magnesium level on the 4th Wednesday of the month. There was no documentation the labs were obtained in April 2023 On 06/20/23 at 1:45 p.m., the DON was asked to locate documentation a CBC, CMP, and magnesium level was obtained in April 2023 for Res #24. On 06/20/23 at 3:00 p.m., the DON stated the labs were not collected in April 2023.
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 the kitchen was kept clean and maintained in good repair. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 06/19/23, docu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was kept clean and maintained in good repair. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 06/19/23, documented 39 residents resided in facility. Findings: On 06/19/23 at 8:25 a.m., a tour of the kitchen was conducted. The following observations were made: a. floor tiles were missing, b. oven hood lights were burned out and/or not working, c. there was an accumulation of brown and black residue on the floor under equipment, d. there was an accumulation of brown residue inside of the cabinets, e. there was an accumulation of brown and black residue on the dish machine, chest freezer, stove, three door reach in cooler, dish cart, and stand mixer, and f. there was an accumulation of lint on the oven hood filters. On 06/19/23 at 8:45 a.m., the CDM was asked how staff ensured the kitchen was kept clean and maintained in good repair. They stated they had a cleaning schedule and reported maintenance concerns to the maintenance director. The CDM was shown the above observations.
CONCERN (E)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper antibiotic stewardship was completed for two (#8 and #30) of two residents reviewed for antibiotic use. The Resident Census a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper antibiotic stewardship was completed for two (#8 and #30) of two residents reviewed for antibiotic use. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form, dated 6/19/23, documented a census of 39. Findings: A facility Policy and Procedure for Proper Antibiotic Stewardship Program, read in part .the proper use of antibiotics while ensuring the safety and well-being of the residents .specific criteria, McGeer criteria, the facility has adopted for assisting in prescribing antibiotics .follow the McGeer criteria for assisting in the diagnosis of infections that require antibiotics . 1. Res #8's physician order, dated 02/04/23, documented the resident was to receive an antibiotic for 10 days due to cellulitis. The resident's MAR for April 2023 documented the antibiotic was completed per the physician orders. The clinical record did not document specific criteria to ensure the proper use of antibiotics was conducted. A quarterly assessment, dated 6/12/23, documented the resident had severely impaired cognition. 2. Res #30's physician order, dated 02/22/23, documented the resident was to receive an antibiotic for 10 days to treat cellulitis. An annual assessment, dated 04/10/23, documented the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. The February MAR documented the antibiotic was completed per the physician's order. The clinical record did not document specific criteria to ensure the proper use of antibiotics. On 06/21/23 at 10:30 a.m., the ADON and consultant RN #1 reviewed the clinical records and reported the antibiotic stewardship policy was not followed and the criteria was not completed for the antibiotic use for Res #8 and Res #30.
Jun 2022 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement an abuse policy for reporting an allegation of abuse to the state agency within two hours for one (#25) of one sample...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement an abuse policy for reporting an allegation of abuse to the state agency within two hours for one (#25) of one sampled resident reviewed for abuse. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 05/25/22, documented 46 residents resided in the facility. Findings: An undated facility policy titled ABUSE, NEGLECT, AND EXPLOITATION POLICY AND PROCEDURE was reviewed. The policy did not contain the required timeframe for reporting allegations of abuse or the use of multimedia involving the residents. Res #25 had diagnoses which included Parkinson's disease and recurrent depressive disorder. On 05/24/22 at 10:34 a.m., the resident voiced a concern regarding a staff member who provided care. The resident stated she had not told anyone in the facility. On 05/24/22 at 10:43 a.m., the administrator entered the resident's room to talk about their concerns. The resident stated a staff member had abused them. An incident report, dated 05/24/22, documented an allegation of abuse for the resident. A fax transmission report, dated 05/24/22 at 3:49 p.m., documented the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) had received the incident report regarding the allegation of abuse for the resident. On 05/31/22 at 9:44 a.m., the administrator stated he was responsible for allegations of abuse in the facility. The administrator stated the current policy was undated and had been used since his hire in 2014. The administrator stated the policy did not document the required timeframe for reporting allegations of abuse and to his knowledge the reporting timeframe was 24 hours. The administrator was unaware of the two hour reporting timeframe for allegations of abuse.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

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 review and revise a care plan for one (#32) of 13 sampled residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to review and revise a care plan for one (#32) of 13 sampled residents whose care plans were reviewed. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report documented 46 residents resided in the facility. Findings: The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia. A physician order, dated 03/29/22, documented the resident's wander guard device was to be monitored on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for operability. The care plan, dated 05/07/22, read in part, .STAFF TO PERFORM ROUTINE CHECK OF WANDERGUARD BRACELET SYSTEM PER PHYSICIAN ORDER AND REPORT ANY PROBLEMS TO CHARGE NURSE. An incident report, dated 05/13/22, documented the resident was found about one block away from the facility by a staff member that had left to run a personal errand. On 05/31/22 at 1:28 p.m., the administrator reported the resident's care plan should have also been updated after his elopement. On 05/31/22 at 2:00 p.m., the MDS coordinator #2 reported if there was any changes or updates to the resident's care plan it would be on the back of each topic sheet. The MDS coordinator #2 reported there was nothing updated on the care plan.
CONCERN (D)

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

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to post nurse staffing information, which included all of the required components, in an area where it could be viewed by all residents. The Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to post nurse staffing information, which included all of the required components, in an area where it could be viewed by all residents. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form documented 46 residents resided in the facility. Findings: On 05/25/22 at 12:20 p.m., the nurse staffing information was not posted. On 05/31/22 at 8:46 a.m., the nurse staffing information was not posted. On 06/01/22 at 8:20 a.m., the nurse staffing information was not posted. On 06/01/22 at 11:13 a.m. the DON reported the nurse staffing information should have been posted.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0882 (Tag F0882)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to have an infection preventionist, who had completed required training, to be responsible for the facility's infection prevention and control...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to have an infection preventionist, who had completed required training, to be responsible for the facility's infection prevention and control program. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report, dated 05/25/22, documented 46 residents resided in the facility. Findings: On 06/01/22 at 12:06 p.m., the administrator identified the DON has the infection preventionist for the facility. The administrator was unable to provide a certification for a infection preventionist. On 06/01/22 at 1:10 p.m., the DON reviewed the program for the infection preventionist. The DON stated he had failed to complete the final test following to obtain his infection preventionist certification.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for one (#3) of 13 residents whose care plans were reviewed. The administrat...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for one (#3) of 13 residents whose care plans were reviewed. The administrator identified five residents who were assessed for smoking. Findings: Res #3 had diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus and acute bronchitis. A SMOKING ASSESSMENT, dated 02/22/21, documented the resident had requested or expressed a desire to smoke. The assessment documented the resident was independent with smoking and understood the smoking policy. The care plan, dated 11/22/21, did not include the resident was a smoker or a smoking plan of care for the resident. On 05/26/22 at 1:08 p.m., the resident was observed outside in the facility smoking area. The resident was able to light her own cigarette and smoke independently without difficulty. On 05/26/22 at 2:04 p.m., the care plan/MDS staff #1 stated the resident and four other residents had been assessed for smoking. The staff stated the five residents assessed for smoking did not have care plan for smoking.
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to monitor and document operability of safety device to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, and interview, the facility failed to monitor and document operability of safety device to prevent an elopement for one (#32) of one sampled resident reviewed for elopement risk. The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia. A physician order, dated 03/29/22, documented the resident's wander guard device was to be monitored on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday for operability. An incident report, dated 05/13/22, documented the resident was found about one block away from the facility by a staff member that had left to run a personal errand. The report documented the resident's wander guard bracelet had been checked on 05/11/22 and was working. On 05/31/22 at 1:28 p.m., the administrator reported documentation for the wander guard bracelet should be documented by the charge nurse on the medication administration report. On 05/31/22 at 1:35 p.m., the TAR contained no documentation that the resident's wander guard bracelet had been monitored for operability. On 06/01/22 at 11:13 a.m., the Director of Nursing was shown the resident's TAR. The DON reported there was no documentation the resident's Wander Guard bracelet had been working properly.
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
  • • 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.
Concerns
  • • 17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Lexington, Inc.'s CMS Rating?

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

How is Lexington, Inc. Staffed?

CMS rates LEXINGTON NURSING HOME, INC.'s staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 46%, compared to the Oklahoma average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Lexington, Inc.?

State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at LEXINGTON NURSING HOME, INC. during 2022 to 2024. These included: 17 with potential for harm.

Who Owns and Operates Lexington, Inc.?

LEXINGTON 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 70 certified beds and approximately 42 residents (about 60% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LEXINGTON, Oklahoma.

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

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma, LEXINGTON NURSING HOME, INC.'s overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (46%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Lexington, Inc.?

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 Lexington, Inc. Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Lexington, Inc. Stick Around?

LEXINGTON NURSING HOME, INC. has a staff turnover rate of 46%, 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 Lexington, Inc. Ever Fined?

LEXINGTON NURSING HOME, INC. 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 Lexington, Inc. on Any Federal Watch List?

LEXINGTON 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.

LEXINGTON NURSING HOME, INC.

632 SOUTHEAST 3RD STREET, LEXINGTON, OK 73051 | (405) 527-6531

B
Trust Grade (75/100)
4.0
CMS Rating
17
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • 4-star staffing
  • 4-star quality

Concerns

  • Review findings

Ask about: Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025