SPIRO NURSING HOME, INC.

401 SOUTH MAIN, SPIRO, OK 74959 (918) 962-2308
For profit - Corporation 95 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
66/100
#72 of 282 in OK
Share this report: Email Text Facebook WhatsApp
Last Inspection: June 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Spiro Nursing Home, Inc. has a Trust Grade of C+, meaning it is slightly above average but still has room for improvement. It ranks #72 out of 282 facilities in Oklahoma, placing it in the top half of state options, and is the highest-rated facility in Le Flore County. However, the facility's trend is worsening, with the number of issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 3 in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength, with a 4 out of 5-star rating and a turnover rate of 39%, which is well below the state average, indicating staff consistency. On the downside, the facility has received $14,521 in fines, which is average but still raises concerns about compliance issues. Specific incidents of concern include a critical finding where a resident was at risk of burns while drinking coffee, highlighting a failure to ensure resident safety. Additionally, the facility did not provide proper notice or documentation when residents were transferred to hospitals, which is important for their rights and care continuity. Lastly, there were gaps in individualized care plans for residents, as key medical conditions like dementia and diabetes were not properly documented. While there are strengths in staffing and overall ratings, families should be aware of these weaknesses when considering this nursing home.

Trust Score
C+
66/100
In Oklahoma
#72/282
Top 25%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
39% turnover. Near Oklahoma's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$14,521 in fines. Lower than most Oklahoma facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 22 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Oklahoma. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
○ Average
9 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
↔
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (39%)

    9 points below Oklahoma average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 39%

Near Oklahoma avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $14,521

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 9 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Jun 2025 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Notice of Medicare Non-coverage form was provided to a resident in the required timeframe for 1 (#44) of 3 sampled resident review...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Notice of Medicare Non-coverage form was provided to a resident in the required timeframe for 1 (#44) of 3 sampled resident reviewed for beneficiary notices. The BOM stated seven residents had discharged from Medicare part A services between 11/01/24 and 06/01/25. Findings: A CMS-10123 form [Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage], signed by Res. #44 on 03/03/25, showed the resident's Medicare Part A services would have ended on 03/04/25. On 06/02/25 at 3:16 p.m., the BOM was asked to explain the purpose of the CMS-10123 form. They stated it was a notice to inform a resident that skilled services funded by Medicare Part A would be ending on a particular date. The BOM was asked when the notice was required to be given to a resident. They stated it was to be given no later than 48 hours prior to the end date of the services. The BOM was asked to review Res #44's CMS-10123 signed on 03/03/25 for any deficiencies. They stated it appeared the resident received the form 24 hours prior to the end of skilled services which was 24 hours too late. They stated they had made a mistake with that resident's form. On 06/02/25 at 3:41 p.m., the administrator stated they did not have a policy and procedure to address the use of form CMS-10123. They stated it had been standard practice at the facility to present the form 48 hours prior to the end of skilled services. The administrator stated they had spoken with the BOM and decided not to pre-print the signature date onto the form in the future. They stated they believe the BOM had pre-printed the wrong date on that particular form.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0605 (Tag F0605)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident receiving an antipsychotic medication had an appropriate diagnosis for 1 (#6) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for unneces...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a resident receiving an antipsychotic medication had an appropriate diagnosis for 1 (#6) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The ADON reported 4 residents received antipsychotic medications. Findings: A facility policy titled Psychotropic Medication Policy and Procedure, dated 10/24/22, read in part, Psychotropic drugs will not be administered unless necessary to treat a specific condition diagnosed and documented in the clinical record. An admission record, dated 09/21/23, showed Res #6 had diagnoses which included dementia and depression. A quarterly assessment, dated 03/21/25, showed Res #6 had a BIMS score (a test for cognitive function) of 00, which was indicative of severe impairment for daily decision making. The assessment also showed Res #6 was receiving an antipsychotic medication. A physician's order, dated 04/01/25, showed Res #6 was receiving Seroquel (an antipsychotic medication) 25 mg by mouth at bedtime for dementia with other behavioral disturbance. On 06/03/25 at 1:35 p.m., the infection preventionist stated that dementia was not an appropriate diagnosis for an antipsychotic medication On 06/03/25 at 1:37 p.m., the ADON stated that dementia was not an appropriate diagnosis for an antipsychotic medication.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0628 (Tag F0628)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with a written notice of transfer and a copy of the bed hold policy when they transferred to a hospital for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided with a written notice of transfer and a copy of the bed hold policy when they transferred to a hospital for 1 (#42) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for hospitalizations. The ADON stated 22 separate residents have been transferred to a hospital between 11/01/24 and 06/01/25. This resulted in 38 hospital transfers having occurred during that time frame. Findings: On 06/03/25 a review of Res #42's EMR showed the resident had been transferred to a hospital on five separate occasions: 10/24/24, 12/04/24, 03/24/25, 04/18/25, and 04/30/25. A further review of the EMR did not find documentation bed hold polices or written letters of transfer were given to the resident or their representative. On 06/03/25 at 10:50 a.m., RN #1 was asked what documentation was given to a resident when they were transferred to a hospital. They stated forms such as assessments, vital signs, code status, face sheets, and allergies. They were asked if the residents were given a written notice of transfer and copy of the bed hold policy. They stated they had never given a resident either document when they were sent to a hospital. On 06/03/25 at 10:55 a.m., LPN #1 stated they had never given a written notice of transfer or copies of the bed hold policy when they had transferred residents to a hospital. They stated they had now been aware of the requirement for a written notice of transfer. On 06/03/25 at 11:05 a.m., the ADON was asked if they had a policy about giving residents a written notice of transfer and copy of the bed hold policy when they transferred to a hospital. They stated they had not been giving either to residents when they go to a hospital. They stated they were unaware it was a regulation. On 06/03/25 at 11:17 a.m., the administrator stated they were not aware of the requirement to provide written notices of transfers to residents or provide a copy of the bed hold policy. They stated it had never been done at the facility. The administator stated the bed hold policy was given to the residents when they were admitted to the facility and was in the residents' records. They stated the facility did not have a policy and procedure that included providing those two documents to residents when they transferred to a hospital.
Feb 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure OHCA was contacted when a resident had a serious mental illn...

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 OHCA was contacted when a resident had a serious mental illness for one (#2) of one resident reviewed for PASRR assessments. The DON identified 49 residents resided in the facility. Findings: A PASRR policy, undated, read in part, .To ensure compliance with federal regulations and the accurate determination of eligibility for admission to Spiro Nursing Home, all applicants, regardless of pay source, must undergo the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) process . Resident #2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #2 was diagnosed with bipolar on 03/09/22, TBI on 06/21/22, and dementia on 10/10/22. ON 02/01/24 at 11:04 a.m., the DON stated there was no documentation to show the state agency had be notified of the new diagnosis of bipolar. On 02/01/24 at 1:04 p.m., the DON stated the policy for determination of a level II PASRR being done was any patient who had a prior history of mental diagnosis, a level II PASRR was required before admission to the facilty. She stated if the resident is diagnosed after admission, call the state agency and fill out a form for a level II evaluation.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were secured for one of one insulin cart observed. The Administrator identified one insulin cart. Findings...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure medications were secured for one of one insulin cart observed. The Administrator identified one insulin cart. Findings: A Medication Cart Storage, policy, undated, read in part, .No insulin or injectables shall remain in the treatment cart unless they are being administered and they will remain with the nurse who is administering the drugs . On 02/01/24 at 10:30 a.m., LPN #1 was observed to walk into a resident's room. They left the insulin cart outside of the room with the drawers facing the hall. The LPN's back was to the door and the cart was not visible to the LPN. When the LPN exited the room, they stated they were supposed to lock the cart. They said a resident could have opened it while they were in the room and could have been injured.
Dec 2022 4 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

On 12/06/22, an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to ensure Res #5 was free from burns while drinking coffee. On 12/06/22 at 3:15 p.m., the Ok...

Read full inspector narrative →
On 12/06/22, an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was determined to exist related to the facility's failure to ensure Res #5 was free from burns while drinking coffee. On 12/06/22 at 3:15 p.m., the Oklahoma State Department of Health was notified and verified the existence of the IJ situation. On 12/06/22 at 3:25 p.m., the Administrator was notified of the IJ situation. On 12/06/22 at 4:25 p.m., an acceptable plan of removal was submitted to the Oklahoma State Department of Health. The facility's plan of removal, dated 12/06/22 at 4:25 p.m., read in parts: .We identified 10 resident who require assistance with feeding that would have the possibility of burning themselves with coffee. Any new admission who are assessed to require assistance with feeding will be added to this list. To prevent these issues in the future staff will put approximately 2 tablespoons of ice in the coffee of all residents who require assistance with feeding. The staff will check the coffee temperatures before and after the ice to ensure that the temperature is below 120 degrees. The dietary manager has in-serviced all dietary staff to the updated policy. All staff will be in-serviced before they are allowed to return to work. A sign will be placed on those resident's door and the doors of the kitchen as an additional safety measure to ensure that coffee is cooled prior to delivery to these residents. Administrator will research the possibility of acquiring a coffee pot that will allow us to regulate the temperature of our coffee. The DON will monitor these interventions weekly for the next six months to ensure that they are working and will report findings to the QA committee quarterly. The IJ was lifted, effective 12/07/22 at 10:00 a m., when all components of the plan of removal had been completed. The deficiency remains at an isolated level with a potential for harm. Based on record review, observation and interview the facility failed to ensure Res #5 was free from burns when drinking coffee. The DON identified 25 residents who drink hot liquids. Findings: Res #5 was admitted with diagnoses which included dementia and epilepsy. A nursing note, dated 07/17/21 at 4:39 p.m., read in part Incident Note: aprox [sic] 1300 (1:00 p.m.) called to residents room, resident keeps her own personal mug and had asked for coffee, resident is alert and oriented x's 4, attempted to drink the coffee half laying down and the lid came off and coffee spilled on her chest and ran down into both armpits, immediately we placed cool wet towels to all the areas to cool the burn, POA is in the room with her and call was placed to Dr (name withheld), areas are bright punk [sic] but will likely have some blistering. New order given for Silvadene (a topical antibiotic for burns) and this was applied topically to all areas and tx has been opened for a twice a day application for a week and then to reassess. A nursing note, dated 07/22/21 at 1:37 p.m., read in part, Physician's Order Note: Provider here on rounds and assessed burns s/t [sic] coffee spills. Provider concerned with infection and gave new orders to culture left arm burns and to start Flagyl 250mg TID 1 tab PO x 10 days . A nutrition care plan, updated on 07/17/21, read in parts, .I need supervision and/or assist during meals to ensure I eat .without incident .I will need ice placed in my coffee. Res #5's quarterly resident assessment, dated 07/12/22, documented a BIM (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 5 (severly cognitively impaired). A nursing note, dated 08/09/22, at 7:30 a.m., read in part, Resident spilt hot coffee on (R) side of abdomen and (R) breast and skin is reddened at this time. A skin/wound note, dated 08/15/22, at 2:29 p.m., read in part, CNA notified this LPN of a red area to right hip. Upon inspection it appeared to be a burn. Res #5 states she spilled her coffee two days ago her roommate states she spilled coffee yesterday. DON aware SSD order in place. Dr. aware. A physician's order, dated 08/15/22, read in part, SSD Cream 1% (a topical antibiotic cream for burns) - apply to right hip/side topically every shift for altered skin integrity. On 12/06/22 at 11:00 p.m., CNA #1 obtained coffee for Res #5, the coffee temperature was 159 degrees F. CNA #1 did not place ice in the coffee and reported they did not put ice in the coffee as part of the routine for Res #5. On 12/06/22 from 11:30 a.m. until 11:56 a.m., observed Res #5 with coffee at bedside without supervision. On 12/06/22 at 11:35 a.m., the Administrator reported the facility did not have a policy regarding accidents related to hot liquids. On 12/06/22 at 12:15 p.m., Res #5's roommate who is cognitively intact reported Res #5 always has coffee in their room even at night. On 12/06/22 at 12:20 p.m., CNA #2 and CMA #1 reported they did not put ice in the coffee for Res #5. On 12/06/22 at 3:45 p.m., the Administrator reported the staff should have been putting ice in Res #5's coffee.
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify a resident's family of a change in condition for one (#5) of one resident reviewed for notification of changes. The Resident Census ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify a resident's family of a change in condition for one (#5) of one resident reviewed for notification of changes. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents, dated 12/05/22, documented a census of 55 residents. Findings: A nursing note, dated 08/09/22, at 7:30 a.m., read in part, Resident spilt hot coffee on (R) side of abdomen and (R) breast and skin is reddened at this time. A skin/wound note, dated 08/15/22, at 2:29 p.m., read in part, CNA notified this LPN of a red area to right hip. Upon inspection it appeared to be a burn. Res #5 states she spilled her coffee two days ago her roommate states she spilled coffee yesterday. DON aware SSD order in place. Dr. aware. A physician's order, dated 08/15/22, read in part, SSD Cream 1% (a topical antibiotic cream for burns) - apply to right hip/side topically every shift for altered skin integrity. On 12/06/22 at 11:26 a.m., Family member #1 reported they were not notified Res #5 had burns due to hot coffee in August of 2022. On 12/08/22 at 9:28 a.m., the DON stated the family should have been notified at the time of the incident.
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 related to burns from coffee for one (#5) of one resident reviewed for accidents. The Resident Census and Conditions of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to revise a care plan related to burns from coffee for one (#5) of one resident reviewed for accidents. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents dated, 12/05/22 documented a census of 55 residents. Findings: A nursing note, dated 08/09/22, at 7:30 a.m., read in part, Resident spilt hot coffee on (R) side of abdomen and (R) breast and skin is reddened at this time. A skin/wound note, dated 08/15/22, at 2:29 p.m., read in part, CNA notified this LPN of a red area to right hip. Upon inspection it appeared to be a burn. Res #5 states she spilled her coffee two days ago her roommate states she spilled coffee yesterday. DON aware SSD order in place. Dr. aware. A physician's order, dated 08/15/22, read in part, SSD Cream 1% (a topical antibiotic cream for burns) - apply to right hip/side topically every shift for altered skin integrity. A skin care plan last revised on 10/11/21 was not revised regarding burns received from coffee and Res #5's skin care treatment for burns. On 12/07/22 at 2:00 p.m., the MDS Coordinator reported Res #5's care plan should have been updated regarding their burns and skin care treatment.
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 person centered care plan for two (#2 and #42) of five residents sampled for care plans. The Resident Census and Co...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person centered care plan for two (#2 and #42) of five residents sampled for care plans. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents, dated 12/05/22, documented a census of 55 residents. Findings: A Policy and Procedure for Care Planning, dated 10/14/15, read in part .develop a comprehensive narrative care plan for each resident which will describe the individualized care to be provided to attain or maintain the resident's highest possible physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Res #2 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included dementia and diabetes. A care plan, dated 12/01/22, did not contain documentation for dementia or diabetes. On 12/06/22 at 4:20 p.m., the DON reported neither dementia nor diabetes were documented on the care plan. On 12/06/22 at 4:24 p.m., the administrator reported the care plan should have included dementia and diabetes. Res #42 was admitted with diagnoses which included hypertensive heart disease. A physician's order dated, 06/16/20, read in part, Lasix (a diuretic) 20mg, give 1 tablet by mouth twice a day related to hypertensive heart disease with heart failure. A physician's progress note, dated 11/20/22 at 12:26 p.m., read in parts, CHF: .on Lasix 20mg: 1 po bid . There was no care plan for diuretic therapy due to hypertensive heart failure. On 12/07/22 at 2:00 p.m., the MDS Coordinator reported that Res #42 should have had a care plan for diuretic use.
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?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 39% turnover. Below Oklahoma's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 9 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $14,521 in fines. Above average for Oklahoma. Some compliance problems on record.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 66/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Spiro, Inc.'s CMS Rating?

CMS assigns SPIRO 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 Spiro, Inc. Staffed?

CMS rates SPIRO NURSING HOME, INC.'s staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 39%, compared to the Oklahoma average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Spiro, Inc.?

State health inspectors documented 9 deficiencies at SPIRO NURSING HOME, INC. during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 8 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 Spiro, Inc.?

SPIRO 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 95 certified beds and approximately 49 residents (about 52% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SPIRO, Oklahoma.

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

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Oklahoma, SPIRO NURSING HOME, INC.'s overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Spiro, 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?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Spiro, Inc. Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, SPIRO NURSING HOME, INC. has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Spiro, Inc. Stick Around?

SPIRO NURSING HOME, INC. has a staff turnover rate of 39%, 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 Spiro, Inc. Ever Fined?

SPIRO NURSING HOME, INC. has been fined $14,521 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Oklahoma average of $33,224. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Spiro, Inc. on Any Federal Watch List?

SPIRO 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.

SPIRO NURSING HOME, INC.

401 SOUTH MAIN, SPIRO, OK 74959 | (918) 962-2308

C+
Trust Grade (66/100)
4.0
CMS Rating
9
Deficiencies

Strengths

  • 4-star staffing

Concerns

  • 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation

Ask about: Inspection Response, Rn Coverage

nursinghomedata.org | Data: CMS November 2025